Dear : This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request dated 24 July 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. 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 application on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 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, and the previous Board decisions, along with the previous administrative records of prior applications to the Board, and your submissions in response to the conclusions and earlier denials by the Board. You received an appointment in the Navy in 1995, and began your first period of active duty service on 23 June 1995. You were originally winged as an aviator and served as a pilot during your career. You received anthrax vaccines during your time in the Navy, with vaccines being administered on 8 October 1998, 22 October 1998, 5 November 1998, 29 November 1999, and 6 June 2000. In November 1998, you went on your first operational deployment with the during the deployment you noticed a decrease in your ability to concentrate and severe peeling and flaking of the skin on the palms of your hands and soles of your feet. In December 1998, you caught a conjunctivitis infection which caused a decrease in your vision and resulted in you being on steroid treatments for three years. In July 2000, you were diagnosed with Reiter’s Syndrome and developed gastrointestinal issues and coughing fits. You resumed flying in January 2001 and were granted a waiver of disqualification from flight duty after being diagnosed with Reiter’s Syndrome. You shortly deployed from April to May 2001, and reported an extreme lack of energy and struggling to think clearly during this period. In June 2001, you returned to as a flight instructor and state that you continued to suffer from a lack of energy and mental clarity. In January 2003, you developed a sharp pain in your right testicle combined with burning on discharge and inflamed skin. You were evaluated by a urologist; all tests came back negative and you were advised to rest. You state that although you were able to return to flying, you ceased swimming and other activities due to extreme pain. On 30 April 2004, you were discharged from active duty with an honorable characterization of service and transferred to the Navy Reserve. On 8 September 2004, Veterans Affairs granted you a disability rating of 20% for Reiter’s Syndrome and 10% for tinnitus. In June 2005, you became an active reservist with . In the summer of 2006, you deployed in support of . You state that by September 2006, your condition had deteriorated and you had difficulty performing night landings. By October 2006, you state you were unable to focus to the point that you could not write down coordinates that came over the radio. You subsequently removed yourself from flying responsibilities and state that you have not flown since. You returned to and continued in an active duty status; you report that you were unable to move when you woke in the morning and that you would not arrive at the squadron until noon. You also report only being able to perform a few hours of work before leaving exhausted. Prior to the completion of your final period of active duty, you received a medical screening during which time you were evaluated by a corpsman rather than a doctor. You declined to have your illness assessed by a rheumatologist due to the amount of time it would take. On 5 May 2007, you were discharged from active duty with an honorable characterization of service, and returned to a SELRES status. Your final reserve fitness report reflects service from 17 June 2007 through 31 Oct 2007; you were ranked #1 of 3 competitive SELRES officers and received a “Early Promote” recommendation. Your fitness report notes that although you were not physically qualified to fly due to extended medical conditions you gave simulator instruction on instrument and SAR procedures to junior pilots. Your fitness report also noted three separate periods of active duty in from 23-29 July 2007, 2-7 August 2007, and 8-23 August 2007. Your available service record notes that in 2011, you were contacted by Commander, Navy Personnel Command (CNPC) regarding your status in the Navy Reserve. CNPC notified you that Navy Reserve officers must earn at least 27 retirement points per anniversary year to remain in an active status, and that records indicated that you were no longer participating in an organized unit or pursuing other means of earning minimum retirement point credit. Your records indicate that you continued in a non-participating status, and were honorably discharged from the Navy Reserve on 27 July 2012, after being in Standby-Reserve Inactive (USNR-S2) Status for at least one year. In July 2015, after years of engagement with Veterans Affairs (VA), you received a 100% disability rating for chronic fatigue syndrome. You are currently appealing to the VA for a change to the effective date of the disability rating, citing in part that you presented with symptoms of lack of concentration and immobility as early as 2006. In your request for reconsideration before the Board, you contend that appropriate disability procedures were not followed during your time in the Navy, and that many of your health problems can be traced back to the anthrax vaccines that you received. You provide numerous articles supporting your assertion. You also provide information that private doctors acknowledge that you likely suffer from some an undiagnosed autoimmune illness. After receiving an evaluation in 2007/2008 from the Vaccine Healthcare Center (VHC) at that was based on inaccurate information, you received a corrected evaluation from the VHC in 2010, that states that your long-term disability started while on active duty and should be covered through the medical board disability system. You ask that consistent with the conclusions of private doctors and the determination of the VHC, that the Board refer you to a Medical Board/Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), that you receive a medical retirement from the military, and that you receive retroactive back pay and benefits. You previously petitioned the Board in 2010, 2013, and 2014 for corrective action to your record; your past requests were denied. The Board fully and carefully considered your request for reconsideration and noted that you submitted a Memorandum in Support of Application along with attachments. The Board again considered the 2010 conclusion from the VHC and reviewed the materials and information you submitted with your current application regarding your medical history, documents from the VA, the opinion of your 2007 leadership, and the symptoms associated with the receipt of the anthrax vaccine. The Board noted that while the VHC’s conclusion is probative to your request for corrective action, it is not determinative on the issue of whether you suffered from a service connected condition that manifested itself while you were entitled to basic pay and that merited referral to a Medical Board/PEB in accordance with SECNAVINST 1850.4 series. The Board weighed the VHC’s conclusions along with the information reflected in your performance record and your in-service medical records, and found that although you did present with medical concerns throughout your Naval service, you appear to have been performing your military duties satisfactorily. The Board noted that your final fitness report for the period of June 2007 through October 2007 indicates that you were performing well in a non-flying status, that your contributions merited a ranking of #1 of 3 SELRES LCDRs, and that your leadership resulted in an extremely high degree of success for the command. Furthermore, you were found medically qualified for the performance of active duty during the same reporting period. The Board noted that your medical conditions were well documented and visible to those around you, but in light of your performance as reflected in your final evaluation and your ability to qualify for and execute active duty orders, you were satisfactorily performing your duty. The Board considered that your CO’s 2014 memorandum states that the CO thought you were unfit for duty in 2007, but noted the date of the CO’s memorandum is nearly seven years after the issuance of your final fitness report. Furthermore, the Board noted that nothing in your records contemporaneous with your military service indicate that your chain of command or your medical providers recommended or referred you to the disability evaluation process. The Board concluded that your medical condition, was such that it does not appear to have impacted your fitness for duty, and that referral to a Medical Board/PEB was not warranted. The Board noted that you currently have a 100% disability rating from the VA. The Board considered that eligibility for compensation and disability ratings by the VA are tied to the establishment of service connection and are manifestation-based without a requirement that unfitness for military duty be demonstrated. Accordingly, the VA’s 100% disability rating does not establish an unfitness for military duty at the time of your SELRES or active duty service. Your fitness reports and performance of active duty indicate you were executing your duty satisfactorily, and that you were fit for duty. Accordingly, the Board found that a change to your record to issue a medical retirement is not appropriate, even in consideration of your 100% VA disability rating. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your contention that you were not properly referred to the disability evaluation process and were wrongfully denied a Medical Board/PEB. The Board considered that you report having symptoms as early as 2006 that impacted your ability to remain in a flying status, and that you attribute your medical issues to the receipt of the anthrax vaccine. Based on the evidence in your record which shows that you continued to contribute to the Navy in an non-flying status, and which does not indicate that either Medical or your chain of command saw fit to refer or recommend you to the disability evaluation process during your active or reserve service, the Board concluded that neither a post-discharge referral to the disability evaluation process nor a medical retirement with back pay and benefits is appropriate. The Board found that your record does not reflect an error or injustice that merits corrective action. 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. 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.