DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 2502-20 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. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 June 2021. 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 29 April 2020 and 9 June 2020 advisory opinions (AO) furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) (PERS-32) and (PERS-801) and your response. 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. The Board carefully considered your request to remove your fitness reports for the reporting periods 5 December 2013 to 30 April 2014 and 11 August 2017 to 31 January 2018. You also request removal of your failures of selection, a special selection board (SSB) for promotion to Lieutenant Commander (LCDR/O-4), and to be reinstated to active duty with back pay effective 1 February 2018. The Board considered your contentions that: 1) your fitness report for the reporting period 1 February 2013 to 4 December 2013 does not comport with the Navy Personnel Evaluation System Manual (EVALMAN) because the reporting senior (RS) failed to evaluate your performance during the four month period, and the EVALMAN provides that not observed (NOB) reports may be submitted when the Regular report has been fully evaluation in a Concurrent report; 2) your fitness report for the reporting period 5 December 2013 to 30 April 2014 was not based on a fair and impartial evaluation, you never met your RS, and the 1:1 Must Promote (MP) recommendation led to your failures of selection; 3) the decrease in your fitness report for the reporting period 11 August 2017 to 31 January 2018 was not justified. You claim that your supervisor during the 5 December 2013 to 30 April 2014 reporting period subjected you to unprofessional and inappropriate conduct and verbal remarks. You referenced Muse v. United States which held that if an officer’s evaluation has not been prepared objectively and according to regulation, that defect could have resulted in his non-selection. You also claim that the MP recommendation on your noncompetitive fitness report sent a red flag to the promotion board and your immediate supervisor intentionally used the report to undermine your chances for promotion because she felt spurned by your repeated rejections. You further claim that your RS for the reporting period 11 August 2017 to 31 January 2018 artificially lowered your evaluation to control his average and you did not receive any negative feedback or counseling that would justify your decreased trait marks and rating. As evidence, you furnished statements from former co-workers. The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AOs that your fitness reports are valid. In this regard, the Board noted that your fitness reports do not contain any adverse information, performance traits, or promotion recommendations, and each report was prepared according to the EVALMAN. The Board found no evidence and you provide none, which would indicate your RSs acted for illegal or improper purposes. Concerning your fitness report for the reporting period 1 February 2013 to 4 December 2013, the Board noted that you were deployed and on leave during the majority of the reporting period and your record contains a fully evaluated Concurrent report covering the reporting period 30 September 2012 to 29 August 2013. The Board determined that based upon your absences while deployed and on leave, the actual reporting period consisted of 75 days, thus according to the EVALMAN a NOB report was warranted. Concerning your fitness report for the reporting period 5 December 2013 to 30 April 2014, the Board noted that you received the second highest promotion recommendation ‘MP’. The Board also noted that the EVALMAN provides that RS’s should not make “Early Promote” (EP) and MP recommendations merely because quotas are available. The Board determined that your MP promotion recommendation was not an injustice and your RS had no obligated to mark your promotion recommendation as EP. The Board found no evidence to substantiate your accusations of inappropriate behavior by your supervisor or that she acted to influence your promotion recommendation to undermine your promotion and you provided none. The Board also determined that any opinions regarding the competitiveness of your fitness report are baseless if the individuals were not privileged to the deliberations of your promotion boards. Moreover, the Board found no evidence that you were not properly considered for promotion or that your promotion selection boards failed to adhere to Department of Defense Commissioned Officer Promotion Program Procedures. Concerning your fitness report for the reporting period 11 August 2017 to 31 July 2018, the Board noted that your RS was not the same RS as your previous reports. The Board determined that your RS evaluated your performance based upon his discretionary authority, and had no requirement to mark your traits similar to your previous reports or to justify his marks. Based upon the fore mentioned determinations, the Board found no grounds to remove your contested fitness report, for your reinstatement to active duty, to remove your failures of selection, or to convene a SSB. Accordingly, the Board concluded that there is no probable material error, substantive inaccuracy, or injustice warranting corrective action. 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, 6/25/2021 Executive Director