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

Docket No. 980-18 
JUL 30 2018 

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 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 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 ofthe Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your 
application on 12 July 2018. The names and votes of the members of the 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 of your application, together with all 
material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record and applicable 
statutes, regulations and policies. 

A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Marine Corps in January 
2009. On 23 September 2009, you were seen by mental health for a number of issues when you 
disclosed a preservice history of dyslexia and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). 
You also admitted not disclosing this information during your recruitment process. As a result, 
you were notified of administrative separation processing for fraudulent enlistment on 1 October 
2009 and later discharged on 14 October 2009 with a General characterization of service. On 14 
September 2011, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rated you for degenerative disc 
disease and sciatica of your right lower extremity. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve a disability discharge based on 
your assertion that you were injured while on active duty and not provided proper medical 
treatment. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. The Board 
concluded that you were properly discharged for fraudulent enlistment for two reasons. First, the 
Board found no evidence that you were unfit for continued naval service as a result of any 
medical condition. Based on this lack ofevidence, the Board determined you were properly 
processed for fraudulent enlistment vice referral to the Disability Evaluation System. The Board 
also noted that your VA rated condition for degenerative disc disease is a degenerative condition 
that takes years to manifest. Ifyour condition existed at the time ofyour period of active service, 
based on your eight months ofactive duty, the Board concluded that you likely suffered from the 
condition prior to your entry into the Marine Corps. Second, the Board found that there was 
sufficient evidence to support a finding that you purposefully withheld preservice medical 
information, i.e. your dyslexia and ADHD, from the Marine Corps that would have disqualified 
you from meeting enlistment standards. As a result, in the Board's opinion, you procured your 
enlistment into the Marine Corps fraudulently and met the criteria for a fraudulent enlistment 
discharge. Based on the second finding, the Board felt it inappropriate to reward your fraudulent 
behavior by granting you any disability benefits. However, taking into consideration your 
fraudulent enlistment in coajunction with the lack ofevidence of unfitness due to a disability, 
they determined the totality ofthe evidence supports a finding that no error or injustice exists in 
your case. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour 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 ofan official naval record, the 
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 



Executive Director