DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 9469-19 Ref: Signature Date This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request dated 10 September 2019. You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been approved. 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. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 January 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. The Board carefully considered your arguments that your narrative reason for separation be changed to disability. You assert that you were suffering from sleep apnea and a sinus condition prior to your discharge. You further argue that you were misdiagnosed with a personality disorder. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. To qualify for a disability discharge, a service member must be unfit for continued naval service due to a qualifying disability condition. In order to find that a service member is unfit for continued naval service, it must be established that the disability condition actually interferes significantly with the service member’s ability to carry out the duties of his or her office, grade, rank or rating. The Board reviewed evidence of your performance around the time of your discharge to consider whether you suffered from an occupational impairment as a result of any disability condition to merit a finding of unfitness for continue naval service. The Board found the preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding of unfitness. First, the Board found no evidence that your treating medical providers determined you suffered from a disability condition sufficiently impairing to require your referral to a medical board. Since referral to the Disability Evaluation System is initiated by medical providers, the Board found this evidence probative on the issue of unfitness. Second, your first line supervisor provided a statement that, while you were having difficulty adjusting to the demands of the Navy, he did not recall you having difficulty with the “initiation or completion of his duty assignments.” Further, your Commanding Offer provided a similar assessment of your performance. He stated in his letter that you were “an effective, and valued team member supporting an elite squadron, during garrison and deployed operations, including four months of sustained combat operations in in support of Operation Enduring Freedom” during the preponderance of your time with . In both of these letters describing your performance, there is no mention of your inability to perform your assigned duties due to a disability condition. In as much as the Board relied on your Commanding Officer’s opinion to upgrade your characterization of service to Honorable, they gave equal credence to his evaluation of you as an “effective, and valued team member” due to your performance. In the Board’s opinion, these performance statements from your chain of command supports a finding that you were fit for active duty while assigned to . Third, the Board considered the Department of Veterans Affairs Compensation and Pension Examination Report of 7 September 2005. In this report, it documents that you reported “doing well medically” and taking “no medications.” Further the report states you were taking courses at a community college and playing basketball with your friends in your spare time. The Board found this evidence persuasive on the issue of fitness for continued naval service since it indicates you were functioning well socially, cognitively, and physically within six months of your discharge from the Navy. When considering this evidence in combination with the other two factors, the Board reached the conclusion that the preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding of unfitness for continued naval service. So while your personality disorder diagnosis may have been erroneous, the evidence does not support changing your narrative reason for separation to disability. For this reason, the Board decided your narrative reason for separation was correctly changed to Secretarial Authority by the Naval Discharge Review Board and remains appropriate. 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 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, 1/7/2020