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 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 18 June 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 opinions contained in Psychiatric Advisor CORB letter 1910 CORB: 002 of 27 Apr 2020 and Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 30 Apr 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 February 2001.  After reporting onboard USS  in June 2001, you commenced a deployment onboard the ship to the  in 2003.  In May 2003, you reported to medical after striking your head onboard the ship.  You were returned to duty after receiving treatment.  Your performance evaluation ending on 15 June 2003 noted that you participated in the ship’s deployment and performed duties commensurate with your rating as a Machinists Mate, e.g. equipment maintence and repair onboard the ship.  You completed a Post-Deployment Health Assessment in December 2003 where you reported nightmares, avoidance, hypervigilance, and numbness due to witnessing dead bodies and engaging the enemy.  It is worth noting that the Board found no evidence in your record to corroborate your assertion that you were ever assigned to duties in  or , engaged in combat, or exposed to dead bodies during your active duty service.  In February 2006, you were diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder by determined to be psychologically fit and suitable for full duty.  You were prescribed Zoloft after a follow-up evaluation that concluded you suffered from an adjustment disorder.  You suffered from cervical strains in April 2006 and February 2008 but were treated both times for your condition and released back to duty.  You were also prescribed medication to combat test-taking anxiety symptoms in June 2006.  In 2008, you were again seen for depression symptoms and diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxious mood, resolved in April.  You appear to serve without incident until 2011, when you were hospitalized in May 2011 based on reported suicidal ideations.  However, in the meantime, you completed your academic degree by earning a Bachelor of Science in Communication in the Fall of 2011.  Yet, you were again seen for mental health symptoms in February 2012 during which you were being investigated for misconduct related to your recruiting duties.  You were diagnosed with an adjustment disorder but determined to be worldwide deployable and fit for duty.  Non-judicial punishment was imposed on you in March 2012 based on you directing recruits not to disclose potentially disqualifying information on their applications.  For this misconduct, you were reduced to the paygrade of E-4 and fined.  You were seen by mental health in March 2012 during which you reported anxiety and depression symptoms.  You were hospitalized again on 16 April 2012 and diagnosed with an episode of Major Depressive Disorder and Anxiety Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified.  Upon discharge, the medical report noted the inconsistencies in your medical history that brought into question your claims of service in  and  along with your claims of combat-related trauma.  This Board denied your request to remove your non-judicial punishment on 10 July 2012 before your were discharged at the end of your obligated service on 23 July 2012.  You were not recommended for reenlistment due to your High Year Tenure status caused by your recent reduction in rate.  Post-discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs rated you for Major Depressive Disorder  
 
The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve to be placed on the disability retirement list for Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and mental health conditions.  You also assert that you were prescribed Mefloquine that likely contributed to your mental health deterioration.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rational for relief.  In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinions contained in Psychiatric Advisor CORB letter 1910 CORB: 002 of 27 Apr 2020 and Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 30 Apr 2020. 
 
In order for a service member to qualify for placement on the disability retirement list, the member must be unfit for continued naval service due to a qualifying disability condition.  Unfitness is defined as an inability to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating as a result of a disability condition.  In other words, a member must suffer from a disability condition that creates a significant occupational impairment.  In your case, the Board concluded the preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that you were unfit for continued naval service as a result of any disability condition.   
 
First, the Board found no evidence you were ever prescribed Mefloquine.  The Board also noted that you were not assigned to duties where a Mefloquine prescription would normally be issued.  Additionally, as previously explained, the Board could find no evidence to support your assertion that you served in a combat zone in any capacity other than onboard USS  as a Machinists 
Mate.  There was no record of you serving in  or  nor was there any evidence you engaged the enemy in combat anywhere.  Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board concluded your assertions of combat and exposure to trauma were not credible.  Based on this finding, the Board concluded that your arguments that your combat-related PTSD was somehow related to your Major Depressive Disorder was not plausible.   
 
Second, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence that you were unfit for continued naval service based on evidence leading up to your discharge from the Navy.  The Board noted that you completed your academic studies in the Fall of 2011 and were performing your duties as a Recruiter well except for your behavior that led to your non-judicial punishment.  But most importantly, the Board felt you believed you were capable of continuing to serve on active duty when you submitted an application to this Board in April 2012 requesting the Board set aside your non-judicial punishment to make you eligible for retention.  After reviewing your record, the Board concluded the only reason you were not able to continue your active duty service was because you were in a High Year Tenure status due to your administrative reduction in paygrade.  Your performance record and the lack of any medical provider recommendation that you were somehow unqualified for continued service convinced the Board that the preponderance of the evidence did not support your placement on the disability retirement list.  In making this finding, the Board also considered your TBI claim in addition to your mental health condition.  The Board noted a number of times in which you struck your head in the course of your duties.  After each incident, you were treated and released back to duty.  Therefore, based on the totality of the evidence, the Board concluded a referral to the Disability Evaluation System or a finding of unfitness for continued naval service for any of your medical conditions was not supported.     
 
Finally, the Board considered your post-discharge VA rating for Major Depressive Disorder.  The Board felt your VA rating was not probative to 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.  As explained above, the Board found evidence to support a finding that you were, more likely than not, fit for active duty at the time of your discharge.  Therefore, while the Board empathizes with your current medical condition, they felt compensation and treatment for your disability conditions fall outside the scope of the Department of Defense disability system and under the purview of the VA.  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.   
 
       Sincerely, 
 6/19/2020