Docket No: 9145-19 
Ref: Signature Date 

 
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.      
 
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. 
 
In your previous petition to the Board (Docket No: 5443-17), you requested retroactive promotion to Master Gunnery Sergeant (MGySgt/E-9).  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 November 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, as well as the 14 April 2020 and 24 July 2020 advisory opinions (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Enlisted Promotions Branch (MMPR-2) and your response.     
 
The Board carefully considered your request for retroactive promotion to MGySgt for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 and FY 2017 USMC E-9 promotion selection boards.  The Board carefully considered your new contention that the previous Board’s decision was based only on the opinion of a person at the promotions branch rather than a learned interpretation of the applicable regulations and Marine Corps Orders (MCOs).  You also contend that a Marine Corps career model presentation and MCOs state that your Special Duty Assignment (SDA) Free Military Occupational Specialty (FMOS) 8014 would qualify you to be considered “highly qualified” for promotion, however, the FY 2016 and FY 2017 precepts failed to consider your SDA as one of the billets warranting the “highly qualified” designation.  You claim that you would have sought a SDA that would have earned you “highly qualified” consideration at the promotion board if you had not been misled.  As evidence, you furnished an active reserve video presentation by Headquarters Marine Corps, Manpower and Reserve Affairs (M&RA).   
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the previous AO and Board determination that the FY 2016 and FY 2017 promotion board precepts and supplemental guidance regarding SDA billets was in keeping with Marine Corps policy and past precedence.  In this regard, the Board noted that the precepts for your contested promotion boards only designated those SDA MOSs with strict screening requirements and whose duties and requirements are notably demanding, stringent, and rigorous as “highly qualified”.  The Board also noted that the Marine Corps MOS Manual provides that an 8014 FMOS can be filled by any Marine in the grade E-1 through E-9 and your FMOS 8014 has no special prerequisites or requirements.  The Board found no evidence in the video presentation or MCOs to indicate that your FMOS would be briefed as “highly qualified.”  The Board determined that Marine Corps Reserve Affairs and the Director, Manpower Management were not required to designate every FMOS or SDA as “highly qualified” in promotion board precepts.  The Board substantially concurred with the AOs and determined that retroactive promotion and remedial consideration to MGySgt is not warranted.  The Board thus determined that there is no probable material error or injustice warranting corrective action. 
 
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,