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

Docket No. 196-19 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear , 

This is in reference to your application of 19 November 2018 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 that 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 14 May 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 CORB: 002 of 17 March 2020 and Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 20 March 2020 along with your response to the opinions.
 
A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Army in 1970 and completed your obligated active service 1972.  You entered active duty with the Navy in August 1981 and commissioned as a Surface Warfare Officer.  As pointed out in your application, you served with merit and without incident until a February 1992 accident during which you suffered injuries to your neck and back.  You were placed on limited duty for your injuries in May 1992 and you reported to      in August 1992 as a Masters level student.  Medical records show that you were seen by medical for your limited duty conditions in September 1992 but found fit for active duty by December 1992 after you submitted a voluntary request to leave active duty in order to accept a Special Separation Bonus.  You were eventually discharged from active duty on 1 June 1993 after receiving your Master of Military Operational Art and Science Degree.  Post-discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rated you for degenerative joint disease and degenerative disc disease of lumbosacral spine along with degenerative joint Docket No. 196-19 
disease and degenerative disc disease of cervical spine.  By 2008, you were diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and rated a combined 90% by the VA for your disability conditions.  You were, however, receiving 100% disability from the VA due to unemployability. 

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 at the time of your discharge from the Navy due to your orthopedic disabilities and PTSD.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.  In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinions contained in Senior Medical Advisor CORB letter 1910 CORB: 002 of 17 March 2020 and Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 20 March 2020.  Specifically, the Board found the preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that you were unable to perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating at the time of your discharge.
 
First, the Board agreed with the advisory opinion that the medical evidence does not support a finding of unfitness in your case.  You were returned from limited duty in December 1992 with no follow-on medical treatments after September 1992.  This was strong evidence to the Board that you did not require additional treatment for your conditions despite your contention that you were prevented from receiving proper treatment due to the lack of adequate medical facilities.  The Board felt you would have sought continuing medical treatment for your disability conditions had you determined a medical need to do so existed.  Additionally, regarding your claim that your PTSD condition existed in 1992, prevented you from performing your duties, and led to your decision to voluntarily leave the Navy, the Board was not persuaded despite the opinion you submitted from your mental health provider.  The Board noted that you completed a high level academic program in military operations at the same time you claim your PTSD compromised your ability to command or perform military duties commensurate your rank.  In the Board’s opinion, your ability to finish your Masters level degree six months after you werereturned to full duty status supports the medical decision that you were physically and psychiatrically fit for continued active duty.  The Board concluded, but for your voluntary request to leave active duty in exchange for compensation, you could have continued your career based on your fitness for continued naval service and stellar record of performance leading up to your discharge. 

Second, the fact you were rated by the VA after your discharge did not convince the Board you were unfit at the time of your discharge 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 discussed earlier, the Board found evidence that you were fit for active duty despite the VA’s decision to find a service connection for your disability conditions.  So while the Board empathizes with your current medical condition, they felt compensation and treatment for your disability conditions fall outside the scope of the Department of Defense disability system and under the purview of the VA.  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 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 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. 

Sincerely,