Dear, 

This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request dated 13 March 2019. You previously 
petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been disapproved. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found 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 for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 22 August 2019. 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 carefully considered your arguments that you deserve to be placed on the disability retirement list. You assert that you were suffering from a number of disability conditions, and treated unfairly by your chain of command, including harassment. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. First, in order to be placed on the disability retirement list, a service member must be unfit for continued naval service with a disability rating of 30% or greater. Unfitness is the inability to perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating due to a qualifying disability condition. In your case, despite your treatment for various medical conditions throughout your career, including your myofascial pain, cervical pain, removal of ovarian cysts, and bunionectomy, the Board found the preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that you were unfit for continued naval service due to your PTSD condition. Specifically, the Board relied on the 1 June 2006 separation physical that determined you were 
medically cleared for separation. 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 ….” Since you underwent a separation physical and were medically cleared for separation, the Board found medical evidence does not support a finding of unfitness. 

Additionally, the Board examined your duty performance leading up to your discharge from the Navy. A performance evaluation ending on 6 March 2006 shows that you were performing at or above fleet standards for your paygrade and rating. You were recommended for promotion and retention despite your disability conditions. In the Board’s opinion, this was significant evidence that you were able to perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating at the time of your discharge since this evaluation was issued less than three months prior to your discharge. So the fact you continue to be treated for a number of disability condition post-discharge did not convince the Board you were unfit at the time of your discharge from the Navy. Second, the Board found your assertions of unfair treatment and harassment insufficient to merit your placement on the disability retirement list. Despite your allegations, the Board found you were properly discharged for high year tenure based on existing force control policies in place at the time. Further, there was no evidence your command influenced the medical decision to clear 
you for separation. Based on these findings, the Board determined you were appropriately discharged for high year tenure. 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 reconsideration petition 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 the absence of new matters for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 

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.