DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S COURTHOUSE ROAD SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490  
 
 
Dear ,  
 
This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request.  You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been denied.  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 relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied.      
 
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 September 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 Navy Personnel Command (NPC) memorandum 5400 PERS-836/002 of 8 January 2020; a copy of which was previously provided to you for comment.   
 
On 29 March 1980, you enlisted for 6 years in the U.S. Naval Reserve.  On 12 May 1980, you entered active duty.  On 26 March 1998, BUPERS, Washington, DC published a message notifying several sailors of their medical Board limited duty approval.  Members are not authorized to be placed on limited duty for more than a maximum of 24 months.  If members are not fit for duty at end of 24 months, refer medical board to physical evaluation board (PEB) for determination of fitness for duty.  Your limited duty approval to new PRD date action for PSD NAVSTA,  was 2 February 1998.  On 9 June 1998, you signed an agreement to extend enlistment for 21 months.  On 1 February 1998, you medically qualified for separation.  Commanding Officer, Transient Personnel Unit,  forwarded and approved your request dated 9 July 1999 for retention on active duty in a permanent limited duty status until 1 June 2000 to Bureau of Naval Personnel Command (PERS-821).  On 5 January 2000, the Director Naval Council of Personnel Boards responded with the following: “President Physical Evaluation Board (PPEB), who found you "UNFIT FOR DUTY", and placed you on the Temporary Disability Retirement List with a disability rating of 60%.... In your PFR (Petition for Relief) you request immediate transfer to the Permanent Disability Retired List (PDRL).  You were placed on the TDRL because your condition is considered unstable, not because you were ineligible for the PDRL.”  On 17 February 2000, you were transferred to the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with 19 years, 9 months, and 6 days.  On 16 October 2001, you were transferred from the TDRL to the Permanent Disability Retired List with an effective date of 1 November 2001 with a disability rating of 40%. 
 
You requested that your service entry date be corrected to reflect 12 May 1980, and your discharge date be 1 June 2000; the Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, to include your assertions.  However, the Board concluded that you service entry date is 12 May 1980.  Furthermore, even though the Commanding Officer,   forwarded and approved your request dated 9 July 1999 for retention on active duty in a permanent limited duty status until 1 June 2000 to PERS-821, there is no evidence that it was approved.  In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. 
 
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 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. 
 
 Sincerely,