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 relevant portions of your naval record and your application, 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, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 August 2020. 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: 002 of 28 May 2020 and Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 10 June 2020; copies of which were previously provided to you for comment. A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in May 2001. After serving without incident for a number of years, you commenced failing the Body Composition Assessment (BCA) of the Physical Fitness Assessment (PFA). On 12 October 2006, you failed your third BCA. This BCA failure was documented in your performance evaluation ending on 15 March 2007 along with a non-judicial punishment (NJP). Based on your BCA failure and NJP, you were not recommended for retention. This non-retention recommendation remained in effect during the remaining period of your active duty service due to your continued BCA failures despite evidence that you were performing your duties at an acceptable level. In the meantime, you were placed on limited duty in December 2007 for Chronic Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Depressive Disorder. However, you were found fit for duty on 4 November 2008. A separation physical conducted on 5 November 2008 documented your history of medical conditions but concluded you were fit for separation. You were released from active duty on 28 November 2008 and issued a performance evaluation with a trait average of 2.83 based, in part, on your continued inability to meet PFA standards. Due to your PFA failures, you were not recommended for reenlistment. Post-discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rated you for a number of disability conditions starting in 2008. The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve to be placed on the disability retirement list and have your narrative reason for separation changed from non-retention on active duty. You assert that you were unfit for continued naval service due to your continued treatment for a number of disability conditions that were rated by the VA upon your release from active duty. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinions in your case. Specifically, the Board found insufficient evidence to support a finding that you were unfit for continued naval service on the date of your discharge from the Navy. In addition, the Board concluded your narrative reason for separation is supported by evidence of your multiple PFA failures. In order to qualify for placement on the disability retirement list, a service member must be unfit for continued naval service. Unfitness is defined as the inability to perform the duties of a service member’s office, grade, rank or rating due to a qualifying disability condition. In your case, the Board noted a number of qualifying disability conditions for which you received treatment during your active duty service but concluded the preponderance of the evidence does not show that you were unable to perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating. In reviewing your performance record, the Board noted that you consistently performed at or above fleet standards in professional knowledge and mission accomplishment. As a result, despite your continued failures to meet PFA standards, you were assigned trait averages of 2.71, 2.86, and 2.83 on your last three performance evaluations leading up to your discharge. This was strong evidence that you were capably performing your assigned duties despite the presence of a number of disability conditions at that time. Additionally, the Board considered that you were found fit for duty on 4 November 2008 and fit for separation the next day. This was persuasive medical evidence since the Manual of the Medical Department Chapter 15-20 requires separation examinations and evaluations for active duty members and states “comprehensive evaluations are conducted for the purposes of ensuring that Service members have not developed any medical conditions while in receipt of base pay that might constitute a disability that should be processed by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and to ensure Servicemembers are physically qualified for recall to additional periods of active duty. Thus, the standards for being physically qualified to separate are the same as those being qualified to continue active duty Service … .” The fact you were later rated by the VA for service connected disability condition was not persuasive evidence of unfitness since 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. As explained previously, the Board found strong evidence that your disability conditions created a minimal occupational impairment based on your documented performance record. Regarding a change to your narrative reason for separation, the Board concluded it remains appropriate based on your documented PFA failures commencing years before your discharge from the Navy. In 2006, you were assigned a 3.71 trait average on your performance evaluation despite a history of PFA failures. In the Board’s opinion, this meant your PFA issues were unrelated to your disability issues and was a legitimate basis for denying you reenlistment in the Navy since your PFA failures continued through the rest of your Navy career. Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your record. Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of 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.