Docket No: 218-20
Ref: Signature Date

 
Dear : 
 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code.  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 insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied. 
 
The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would 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. 
 
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 December 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 the 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 also considered the 21 February 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by Lieutenant A., JAGC, and your 12 September 2019 rebuttal thereto. 
 
The Board carefully considered your request for your advancement to E-6 to be reinstated.  The Board considered your contentions that withdrawal of advancement is not supposed to be an alternative to nonjudicial punishment (NJP) or in lieu of NJP, that the revocation of your promotion was based off of unfounded allegations with no supporting documentation of any negative behavior or performance.  You also dispute that you were notified of the revocation prior to the effective and limiting dates of advancement, and that you were being paid as an E-6 until 7 July 2018.  Lastly, you assert that on 4 September 2019, you were acquitted on all charges. 
 
The Board reviewed the requirements for advancement withdrawal pursuant to BUPERS Instruction 1430.16G and substantially concurred with the AO that the authority to withdraw a recommendation for advancement is the prerogative of the member’s current commanding officer (CO).  The Board also noted that, based on the Administrative Remarks (Page 13s) that document the withdrawal recommendation and your refusal to sign your Evaluation Report and Counseling Record, the withdrawal of recommendation for advancement was proper and timely.   
 
With regard to your contention that your command falsified documents, the Board noted that there is no evidence in the record, and you submitted none to substantiate this assertion.  The Board is not an investigative body and thus relies on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of public officers, and in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, will presume that public officers have properly discharged their official duties.  The Board thus concurred with the AO that your command had made the proper notification prior to the advancement and limiting dates, and that the withdrawal was based on the determination that you were not meeting the expectations of a Petty Officer First Class (PO1), despite the lack of disciplinary action taken.   
 
The Board did note that you were being paid as a PO1 for a short period of time after your effective and limiting date, but determined that late data entries effecting the advancement withdrawal in manpower systems does not invalidate the official notification that you received prior to the effective and limiting dates. 
 
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,