Docket No. 5812-19 
Ref: Signature Date 

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 relevant portions of your naval record and your application, 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, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 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 opinion contained in Medical/Psychiatric Advisor CORB letter 1910 CORB: 002 of 3 April 2020 and Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 10 April 2020; copies of which were previously provided to you for comment. 

A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in July 1999.  You were diagnosed with patellofemoral pain syndrome in September 1999 and eventually were placed on limited duty in March 2000 for the condition and bilateral plantar fasciitis.  However, you were found fit for full duty in July 2000 after your provider could find no documentable physical findings or an anatomical defect or normal variant for your symptoms. In the meantime, you were treated for back pain commencing in February 2000 and admitted to the Naval Hospital with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder in April 2000.  Your back condition resulted in your placement on limited duty in October 2000 with related hip pain as an additional condition but you were found fit for full duty in March 2001 after, again, your provider could find no defect or variant responsible for your symptoms.  Additionally, there were no significant finds on your x-rays or MRI results. After continued treatment for your conditions, in August 2001 you were deemed not qualified for sea duty and later recommended for administrative separation for condition not a disability.  As a result, you were discharged from the Navy on 13 November 2001 for condition not a disability.  Post-discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rated you for Bilateral Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome at 10% and Minimal Diffuse Thoracic Spondylosis at 10%.  

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve to be placed on the disability retirement list.  You argue that you were unfit for continued naval service at the time of your discharge for your bilateral knee condition, lumbar spine condition, and bipolar disorder.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.  In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinions contained in Medical/Psychiatric Advisor CORB letter 1910 CORB: 002 of 3 April 2020 and Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 10 April 2020.  Specifically, the Board concluded that the preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that you were unfit for continued naval service at the time of your discharge.  

First, the Board relied on the March 2011 medical determination that you were fit for full duty as evidence that your disability conditions, despite being symptomatic and disqualifying for world-wide deployment, did not merit your referral to the Disability Evaluation System.  The evidence shows that there was no objective documentable findings to support your symptoms that originally placed you on limited duty.  Since your medical providers at the time determined your symptoms did not prevent you from performing your duties as an undesignated Airman or merit a Physical Evaluation Board review, the Board felt this was strong medical evidence your conditions were not unfitting at the time of your discharge.  Second, the Board did not find your VA ratings probative on the issue of unfitness 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. Additionally, the Board noted you were assigned 10% ratings for your bilateral knee condition and spine condition which indicated minimal impairment at the time.  Third, the Board agreed with the advisory opinion that there was insufficient evidence of occupational impairment due to a bipolar disorder based on lack of continued treatment after your brief hospitalization in April 2000 and lack of a VA rating upon your discharge.  Finally, the Board concluded that your inability to maintain world-wide deployment status due to your continued symptoms provides insufficient support for a finding of unfitness.  While your deployability status is a factor to consider in determining whether a service member is unfit for continued naval service, the Board determined that it was one of many factors to consider.  In your case, the Board concluded the medical determination made in March 2001 that you were medically fit for full duty outweighed the administrative decision to not clear you for world-wide deployability.  As previously discussed, your providers could find no anatomical defects to account for your continued symptoms despite multiple tests including x-rays and a MRI.  Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your record.  

Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of 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.