Docket No. 3304-20
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 8 April 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 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 5 May 2020 advisory opinions (AO) furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-32), the 2 June 2020 AO furnished by the Office of Legal Counsel (PERS-00J), and your rebuttal. 
 
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. 
 
The Board carefully considered your request to reinstate your advancement to chief petty officer, and to remove your Evaluation Report and Counseling Record (Eval) for the reporting period 16 September 2018 to 15 November 2018, and the corresponding Eval extension.  The Board considered your contention that the withdrawal of your advancement is disproportionate to your mistake, and that you were denied due process when your Senior Enlisted Advisor’s actions left you with no option to speak with your Commanding Officer or counsel.   
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the PERS-32 AO that your Reporting Senior was within his authority to remove the advancement recommendation, and that the evaluation does not violate BUPERS Instruction 1610.10D.  The Board also noted that although your command provided a vague statement regarding your conduct and withdrawing the promotion recommendation, the promotion recommendation of “significant problems” automatically results in a withdrawal of the recommendation. 
 
The Board also found the letters of recommendation from your current Commanding Officer (CO) and Senior Enlisted Advisor (SEA), as well as your personal statement credible.  However, the Board noted that the CO and SEA were not witnesses to the facts and circumstances that you describe in your application.  The Board thus substantially concurred with the PERS 00J AO that your version alone cannot be solely relied upon in reaching a determination.  Accordingly, the Board concluded that there is insufficient information to determine whether an injustice occurred, and the presumption of regularity controls.  Absent any evidence to substantiate otherwise, such as an advocacy letter from your then-Commanding Officer, the Board concluded that the relief requested is not warranted.   
 
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,