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 18 March 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 2 June 2020 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-32).  Although you were afforded an opportunity to submit a rebuttal, you did not do so. 
 
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 modify your 1 August 2015 to 15 September 2016 Evaluation and Counseling Record to reflect a promotion recommendation of “EP” (Early Promote) and “1 of 1.”  The Board considered your contentions that the Evaluation displays an unjust reporting from “the indicated rater (SOCS) who was not in [your] reporting chain during the last three and a half months of the reporting period, and whose reporting was based solely on a personality conflict with [your] officer-in-charge.”  You argue that there is no justification for the ‘P” and 1 of 1’ marking which has and does greatly impact promotion boards. 
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO.  Specifically, the Board noted that, although raters and mid-term counselors may provide input in the Evaluation process, the reporting senior has final authority over the report.  Pursuant to BUPERS Instruction 1610.10D, the reporting senior shall ensure the Evaluation standards have been respected, and determines the final distribution of promotion recommendations within the member’s summary group using command-directed procedures where applicable.  In this case, your reporting senior properly prepared and submitted the fitness report in accordance with the reference policy. 
   
You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new matters, which will require that you 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,