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 21 November 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 Reserve in November 1981.  You were discharge on 11 November 1987 at the completion of your required active duty and recommended for reenlistment.  Post-discharge, you were rated for a number of service connected disability conditions including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Degenerative arthritis of the spine lumbar compression, facetectomy and fusion, right shoulder impingement syndrome, left shoulder impingement syndrome, right degenerative arthritis right foot, tinnitus, right hip bursitis, right knee degenerative arthritis, left hip degenerative arthritis, and seven disability conditions which resulted in a 0% rating.   
 
The Board carefully considered your arguments that your narrative reason for separation should be changed to disability.  You assert that you were never referred to a medical board despite suffering from service connected disability conditions.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.  In order to qualify for military disability benefits, a service member must be unfit for continued naval service due to a qualifying disability condition.  A servicemember is unfit if they are unable to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating due to their disability condition.  In your case, the Board considered two factors in 
concluding it lacked evidence of unfitness for continued naval service.  First, the Board noted that you were performing at or above fleet averages for your rating and paygrade in the two years leading to your discharge from active duty.  Your performance average as of 1 October 1986 was 3.8 and your performance average as of 30 June 1987 was 3.6.  In the Board’s opinion, this was strong evidence you were able to perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating as of your discharge on 11 November 1987.  Second, the Board took into consideration that you were determined to be qualified for reenlistment at the time of your discharge.  Since there was no limitations to your reenlistment, the Board felt this was additional evidence of fitness for active duty.  Based on these two factors, the Board concluded the preponderance of the evidence did not support relief in your case.  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.