DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD. SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 855-18 AUG 12 2018 Dear This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552. After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Boardfound it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your case on its merits. A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 July 2018. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations oferror 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 ofyour application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions ofyour naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in September 1962 and served successfully as enlisted until your commissioning as a Naval officer in January 1972. On 10 October 1973, you were admitted for mental health treatment after jumping overboard USS . You were diagnosed by a medical board with Schizophrenic reaction, schizoaffective type, depressed and referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) on 15 November 1973. The PEB found you unfit for continued naval servic~ due to your referred condition and rated your condition at 30%. Based on your 30% rating, you were placed on the Temporary Disability Retirement List (TDRL) effective 1 January 1974. After two periodic TDRL examinations in 1975 and 1977 that changed your diagnosis to manic-depressive disorder, you were maintained on the TDRL based on the occupational impairment caused by your condition. On 19 April 1978, a final TDRL examination revealed that you had maintained employment as a field engineer with an oil firm since May 1977. Based on the TDRL examination report, the PEB lowered your disability rating to 10% and discharged you with severance pay. You assert that your disability rating was increased to 30% in 1992, 50% in 2004, and 100% in 2009. The Board carefully considered your arguments that you should be placed on the disability retirement list based on the increase in your VA disability rating since 1992. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. In order for a service member to qualify for placement on the disability retirement list, the member must be rated for a service incurred or aggravated disability at 30% or higher at the time ofPEB adjudication. In your case, there is no evidence that the PEB failed to properly rate your manic-depression in June 1978. The Board carefully considered the 18 April 1978 TDRL examination report and determined that your disability condition was under control with medication and you were successfully maintaining employment as a field engineer in the oil industry despite the impairment caused by your condition. The report also indicated that your job performance was improving at the time ofthe examination despite initial difficulties associated with your disability condition. This was convincing evidence to the Board that your condition was rated correctly at 10%; a rating commensurate with minimal impairment caused by a disability condition. It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action caunot 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 ofregularity 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 ofprobable material error or injustice. Sincerely, Executive Director