DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 10136-18 Ref: Signature Date This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (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, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 March 2020. 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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion contained in Director CORB letter 5220 CORB: 001 of 8 January 2020; a copy of which was previously provided to you for comment. On 12 February 2020, you requested a 30-day extension to respond to the opinion, and an extension until 12 March 2020 was granted. However, no response was received by the Board. A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in May 1982. You served successfully until reporting to the in 1998. During your time onboard the , you were issued an adverse fitness report, resulting in you filing two complaints against your chain of command. As a result, you were transferred to the in January 1999 and OPNAV in 2001, where you served without incident until your retirement from the Navy on 30 September 2003. On 26 September 2003, just prior to your transfer to the retirement list, a medical board was convened for a number of disability conditions. However, you were not referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) prior to your retirement since the medical board was administratively deficient on 29 September 2003 and returned for corrective action. The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve service credit for 30 years of active-duty service, retroactive promotion to paygrade E-9, and placement on the disability retirement list. You raise a number of assertions regarding your alleged mistreatment by your chain of command onboard the and your unfitness for continued naval service in 2003 for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), chronic fatigue syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, and bilateral carpal tunnel. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationales for relief. First, the Board concluded that the preponderance of the evidence does not support your retroactive retirement to E-9. While the Board understands you feel strongly that you were mistreated while assigned to the , the Board found insufficient evidence to support your retroactive promotion to E-9. The evidence shows your two complaints against you’re the chain of command were appropriately adjudicated in accordance with the regulations with no finding that your chain of command improperly issued you the 15 September 1998 adverse fitness report. Despite findings that you were not responsible for all the missing awards paperwork, there was a finding that some of it was lost under your management. In the Board’s opinion, this was a sufficient basis to support the 15 September 1998 fitness report that exists in your record. Additionally, the Board noted you received a number of average fitness reports during your time onboard the with “promotable” recommendations when ranked against your peers. Since you were considered by the selection board and not selected for promotion based, in part, on these fitness reports, the Board concluded that the evidence does not support a change to the promotion board results. Second, the Board determined that the preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that you were unfit for continued naval service at the time of your retirement for PTSD, chronic fatigue syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, and bilateral carpal tunnel. As pointed out in the advisory opinion, three of the conditions you listed as potentially unfitting were not documented in your medical board. Further, even though chronic fatigue syndrome was potentially covered under the conditions “daily fatigue,” the Board found insufficient evidence that it prevented you from performing the duties of your office, grade, rank, or rating. The Board considered your 15 September 2002 fitness report in which you were ranked as “N61’s #1 Chief Petty Officer,” earned a trait average well above fleet standards, and recommended for selection to warrant officer. In the Board’s opinion, this was strong evidence of your fitness for duty based on your documented superior performance leading up to your referral to a medical board. Therefore, the Board agreed with the advisory opinion that you, more likely than not, would have been found fit had your case been referred to the PEB. So while the Board empathizes with your current medical condition, it determined that compensation and treatment for your disability conditions fall outside the scope of the Department of Defense disability system and are, instead, under the purview of the Department of Veterans Affairs, provided you are able to establish a service connection. 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 issues 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. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149. New matters are those not previously presented to or 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, 3/27/2020