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

Docket No. 4513-19 
Ref: Signature Date

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 the entire record, 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 for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 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.

A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in January 1986. On 15 October 1987, you were placed on the Temporary Disability Retirement List (TDRL) with a 30% disability rating after being found unfit for continued naval service due to IGM nephropathy and Nephrotic range proteinuria. On 28 September 1992, you underwent a periodic TDRL examination which indicated your condition had improved and you were working approximately 50 hours a week as a security guard. Based on the periodic examination report, the Physical Evaluation Board found you unfit for continued naval service but lowered your disability rating to 10%. You were released from the TDRL on 23 June 1993 and discharged after accepting the PEB findings. On 16 November 2016, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) increased your disability rating for IGM nephropathy with chronic kidney disease, stage 3 hypertension to 60%.

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve to be placed on the Permanent Disability Retirement List. You assert that your unfitting condition has worsened since your discharge and still significantly affects you. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. The Board concluded the preponderance of the evidence supports the PEB findings in 1992.  The Board relied on the 28 September 1992 TDRL examination which indicated you were gainfully employed and working up to 50 hours per week. In the Board’s opinion, the TDRL examination reports supports the PEB findings that your symptoms had improved significantly since your placement on the TDRL and created a minimal occupational impairment at the time. The fact your condition worsened after your discharge did not convince the Board an error or injustice exists with your record since the PEB findings are only applicable up until your discharge from the Navy. The Board determined that any deterioration of your condition after the PEB findings and your discharge fall under the purview of the VA.  So the fact your VA assigned disability rating was increased approximately 23 years after your discharge from the Navy did not persuade the Board an error or injustice exists in your record.
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.

Sincerely,