DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 10058-18 Ref: Signature Date Dear , This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your case on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 April 2019. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board.Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in June 1988. You suffered a left forearm injury on 29 August 1997 which required surgery and placement on limited duty. You were returned to full duty status on 5 May 1998, however continuing issue with nerve damage in your left arm resulted in your referral to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). On 15 December 1998, the PEB found you unfit for continued naval service for Significant atrophy status post repair extensor carpi radialis longus, extensor carpi radialis brevis, and brachial radialis. Your condition was rated at 20% and you were discharged with severance pay from the Navy on 11 April 1999. Post-discharge, you continued to be treated for your left arm condition and were later seen for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) symptoms in 2012. The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve to be placed on the disability retirement list. You argue that your forearm injury was serious and you reluctantly accepted the discharge. However, treatment has not helped your condition and you have since developed PTSD. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. The Board found insufficient evidence to support a finding that the PEB erroneously rated your left arm condition in 1998. Evidence shows that you were able to secure employment with the United States Postal Service after your discharge and remained employed with them through at least 2012. This was strong evidence to the Board that your left arm condition was not so serious to prevent you from securing employment that required use of your left arm. This finding led them to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the PEB's assigned rating of 20% was erroneous. Further, regarding your claim for PTSD, the Board found no evidence that supports a finding that you were symptomatic for the condition while on active duty. The Board found no evidence that you were treated for the condition or that it created an occupational impairment sufficient to find that it was an unfitting condition back in 1999. Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your record. Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. Sincerely, 4/8/2019 Executive Director 2