Dear   
 
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 for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 November 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 opinion contained in Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 002 of 9 October 2019, a copy of which was previously provided to you for comment. 
  
A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Marine Corps in July 2007.  You were first evaluated for chest pain in August 2009 and released without limitations after no conditions were identified.  You were subsequently treated on 15 January 2010 for chest pain and again released without limitations after treatment.  You were subsequently discharged on 22 July 2010 pursuant to your hardship request and assigned a RE-1A reentry code.  You underwent an Electrocardiogram (ECG) on 22 April 2012 which identified an incomplete right bundle brank block (IRBBB).  On 18 November 2014, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rated you for Brugada Syndrome at 100% due to your need for a pacemaker.   
 
The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve to be placed on the disability retirement list due to your Brugada Syndrome.  You assert that an ECG report conducted while on active duty substantiates your unfitness for continued naval service at the time of your discharge.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.  In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinions contained in Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 002 of 9 October 2019.  Specifically, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that your Brugada Syndrome was unfitting at the time of your discharge.  While the Board acknowledged that your Brugada Syndrome required the placement of a pacemaker that resulted in your 100% disability rating from the VA in 2014, the Board was not convinced your symptoms created a sufficient occupational impairment in 2010 to warrant a finding of unfitness for continued naval service.  As pointed out in the advisory opinion, the passage of time from your discharge to when your condition progressed sufficiently to require the insertion of a pacemaker was too distant in time to be probative on the issue of fitness for continued naval service at the time of your discharge.  Additionally, your VA rating issued with an effective date in 2014 was determined not probative of your fitness for continued naval service in 2010 due to four year gap in time.  Absent evidence you were unable to perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating at the time of your discharge, 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.  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.