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 Psychiatric Advisor CORB letter 1910 CORB: 002 of 3 June 2020 and Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 17 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 Marine Corps in June 2007 after completing your initial training pipeline in 2003.  In December 2007, you were placed on limited duty for low back pain that continued through most of 2009 due to back surgery in October 2008.  However, you were returned to full duty status on 22 September 2009.  During this time, you were treated for a left shoulder condition in May 2009 with no evidence of follow-up treatment while on active duty.  In 2013, you were seen for back pain in October 2013 and mental health treatment starting in November 2013.  You were last seen for back pain in December 2013 and recommended for physical therapy.  Your mental health treatment continued through July 2014 during which you were deemed psychiatrically fit for duty.  You also injured your left hand in January 2014 that resulted in surgery on 26 June 2014.  You were medically cleared for separation on 11 September 2014 and discharged on 10 January 2015 at the end of your obligated active service.  Prior to your discharge, you were last seen by medical for pain management on 22 September 2014 during which you indicated headache symptoms along with hand pain but reported improved symptoms since your June 2014 surgery. 
 
The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve to be placed on the disability retirement list.  You assert that you were unfit for continued naval service due to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), lower back pain, left shoulder pain, wrist pain, and a hearing problem.  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 that you were unfit for continued naval service. 
 
In order to place a service member on the disability retirement list, the member must be unable to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating due to a qualifying disability condition.  In your case, the Board determined the preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that you were unable to perform your duties.  Despite evidence that you were treated for a number of disability conditions, the Board concluded none were unfitting at the time of your discharge.  Regarding your mental health, the Board noted that you were last treated on 16 July 2014 and deemed psychiatrically fit for duty.  The Board also examined your substance abuse treatment and concluded you were doing well with that aspect of your treatment.  Similarly, despite documented orthopedic issues for which you received treatment, you were medically cleared for separation on 11 September 2014 despite the existence of disability symptoms.  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 … .”  Based on the medical determination that your symptoms did not disqualify you from continued active duty, the Board determined your disability symptoms did not merit a referral to the Disability Evaluation System or meet the standard for a finding of unfitness for continued naval service.  In making this findings, the Board also considered the fact you were never placed on any duty limitations near the end of your enlistment and reported improving symptoms on your last documented medical treatment.  Finally, the Board noted that your performance marks during your enlistment were well within acceptable fleet standards for your paygrade and MOS.  This was additional evidence considered by the Board in determining that you did not suffer a sufficient occupational impairment to merit a finding of unfitness.  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 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.