Docket No: 2772-19 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear : 
 
This is in reference to your application 23 February 2020 for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.  After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, 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. 
 
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 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.  The Board also considered the relevant Advisory Opinion (AO) dated 22 February 2020, along with your rebuttal to the AO dated 13 April 2020. 
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to its understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
You enlisted in Navy and began a period of active duty on 10 August 1987.  During your naval service, you earned your qualifications as a Machinist Mate Second Class (Submarines).  In your application for correction you stated that in 1989/1990, during your duty onboard the USS ), you were involved in a traumatic event onboard the submarine wherein the compartments flooded and there were casualties.  You indicate that you began to use alcohol; in February 1990, your body weight was recorded as 205 lbs.  In May 1990, you were notified that your blood contained an elevated enzyme level indicating potentially compromised liver function which rendered you unable to donate blood.  In September 1990, you were counseled regarding drinking in moderation.  By July 1993, your weight increased to 235 lbs.  In February 1995, you completed a rehabilitation program for obesity, but you remained out of Navy standards.  Your weight increased, and you subsequently participated in an overeaters rehabilitation program in 1995.  On 25 September 1998, you were discharged from the Navy on the basis of Weight Control Failure, and received an honorable characterization of service and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. 
 
Following your discharge, you sought treatment for various medical conditions through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  In 2015, at the request of your wife, you state you sought help for mental health concerns and were diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) relating to traumatic events associated with your submarine service.  The VA rated you at 30% for service-connected PTSD, with an effective date of 12 March 2015.  In your application for correction, you provide a November 2018 letter from your civilian psychiatrist that confirmed your diagnoses of PTSD as related to your experiences onboard a submarine.  The psychiatrist further opined that your sleep apnea problems were related to compulsive eating, which emerged following the cessation in alcohol use after compromised liver function was identified. 
 
In your application for correction, you request a medical retirement on the contention that your service-connected PTSD made you unfit for duty at the time of your discharge.  You assert that your disability is permanent and stable, rated at 30% or greater, and is not due to your own misconduct.  You provide a personal narrative and documentation to support your claim that your discharge was the result of previously undiagnosed PTSD and that your record merits corrective action in the form a medical retirement. 
 
As part of the review process, a licensed clinical psychologist reviewed your request, and issued an AO dated 22 February 2020.  The AO considered your contention that you are entitled to a medical retirement, rather than an administrative discharge.  The AO noted that your final performance evaluation on active duty stated that you were a master trainer, an outstanding technician, and an excellent leader who was unable to comply with Navy Physical Readiness Standards.  The AO, however, found that there was insufficient information regarding your PTSD diagnosis to render an opinion regarding its contributions to your eating disorder.  The AO was provided to you, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response.  In response to the AO, you submitted a compilation of your VA treatment records. 
 
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed your assertions, the information reflected in your record, guidance as outlined in SECNAVINST 1850.4 series, and the AO’s conclusions.  The Board took into account your disability rating for PTSD as awarded by the VA and considered the extensive VA records you provided in response to the AO.  The Board noted that the VA’s finding of a service-connected medical condition is not necessarily reflective of a qualifying medical condition or disability that entitles an individual to a disability discharge or medical retirement/discharge.  Pursuant to the SECNAVINST 1850.4 series, qualification for a medical separation or retirement requires a determination of unfitness at the time of an individual’s discharge from military duty.  The Board noted that although you have a service-connected PTSD diagnosis from the VA, your in-service medical records do not establish that you were unfit for duty at the time of your separation.  When making its finding, the Board, like the AO, noted that your final evaluation stated that you were a master trainer, 
outstanding technician and excellent leader.  Your professional performance of duty appears to have been exemplary at the time of your separation, indicating a fitness for duty.  The Board considered the medical records you provided in response to the AO, but concluded that the post-discharge diagnosis by the VA does not establish that you were suffering from a condition or disability that merited referral to the Physical Evaluation Board at the time of your naval service.  The Board reviewed the available discharge records which reflect your non-compliance with physical readiness standards.  The Board concluded that while you were in the Navy, you were afforded appropriate support through various rehabilitation programs for weight control and overeating, but you were nonetheless unable to conform to expected standards.  The Board determined that you were properly separated from the Navy on the basis of regulatory guidance in effect at the time, and that you are not entitled to a medical retirement. 
 
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, 
 
  6/15/2020