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

Docket No. 6519-18 
Ref: Signature Date

Dear	,

This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request dated 9 July 2018. You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been disapproved. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 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. Additionally, the Board considered the advisory opinion contained in Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 002 of 7 August 2019, a copy of which was previously provided to you for comment.

The Board carefully considered your arguments that the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) failed to properly rate your Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) as an unfitting condition. You assert the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decision to rate you for CFS in 2015 and your receipt of Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) substantiates the PEB error. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion contained in Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 002 of 7 August 2019. Specifically, the Board concluded that the preponderance of the evidence supports the PEB finding that you were unfit for Fibromyalgia in 2013 with shared symptoms of fatigue with CFS, a disability condition that was determined not to be separately unfitting.  The Board did not find the 2015 VA rating for CFS persuasive on the issue of unfitness since it was issued years after your retirement and eligibility for compensation and pension disability ratings by the VA is tied to the establishment of service connection and is manifestation-based without a requirement that unfitness for military duty be demonstrated. Additionally, the Board concluded that granting your request would violate the pyramiding prohibition contained in VASRD § 4.14 since your PEB referred unfitting condition of Fibromyalgia was rated based on fatigue as a symptom.  Finally, the Board determined the CRSC Board’s decision to grant you CRSC for your CFS was not probative on the issue of unfitness since the CRSC Board makes it decisions based on assigned VA ratings without regard to fitness or pyramiding restrictions.  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 reconsideration petition are such that favorable action cannot be taken.  You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the 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 the absence of new matters for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction.

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.