DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No. 3121-18 
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 30 May 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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions 
contained in Senior Medical Advisor CORB letter 1910 CORB: 002 of 22 March 2019 and 
Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 9 April 2019 along with your response to the 
opinions. 

A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Marine Corps in May 1997. 
You were treated for headaches in 2001 and received periodic treatment through 2007 for your 
condition. You developed urinary urgency symptoms in 2009 which was treated with 
medication. In 2010, you were treated for adjustment disorder symptoms and tinnitus. In March 
2011, you were found unfit for continued naval service by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) 
due to degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and issued a 20% disability rating. Pursuant 
to the PEB findings in your case, you were discharged with severance pay on 29 May 2011. 
Post-discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs rated you for a number disability conditions 
including migraine headaches, PTSD, tinnitus, and detrusor instability. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve to be placed on the disability 
retirement list. You assert that your migraine headaches, PTSD, tinnitus, and detrusor instability 
conditions were unfitting along with your lumbar spine condition. Unfortunately, the Board 
disagreed with your rationale for relief. In making their findings, the Board substantially 
concurred with the advisory opinions contained in Senior Medical Advisor CORB letter 1910 
CORB: 002 of 22 March 2019 and Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 9 April 2019. 
Specifically, the Board found that the paucity of medical treatments for the conditions for which 
you argue were unfitting does not support such a finding. Based on the lack of consistent 
treatment for the claimed conditions, the Board concluded that insufficient evidence of an 
occupational impairment exists to support a finding that you were unable to perform the duties of 
your office, grade, rank or rating because of your migraine headaches, PTSD, tinnitus, and 
detrusor instability conditions. Further, the Board noted that despite your treatment for your 
claimed conditions, none of your providers felt that these disability conditions merited a referral to the Disability Evaluation System. This was additional evidence that support their finding that a finding of unfitness for continued naval service for those additional conditions was not appropriate. Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your 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, 

6/4/2019