DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 5300-20 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 applications on 5 August 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 applications, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies, as well as the 28 June 2021 Advisory Opinion (AO) provided by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-32). The AO was provided to you on 1 July 2021, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response. 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: (1) remove your 23 May 2016 NJP and associated appeal; (2) remove the adverse case file, to include a 23 May 2016 Punitive Letter of Reprimand (PLOR) and associated appeal, the 28 May 2016 Appeal of Equal Opportunity Complaint, your Report of Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP), and the Request for Detachment for Cause (DFC) and associated appeal; (3) remove your 16 September 2015 to 24 June 2016 Special/Regular Evaluation Report & Counseling Record; (4) remove all “Periodic/Regular” Evaluation & Counseling Records (“Evals”) that were issued by the Commanding Officer, ), while you were on temporary duty orders to the and (5) modify all “Periodic/Concurrent” Evaluations that were issued when you were on temporary duty orders to the to “Regular/Periodic.” The Board considered your contentions that you were used as a scapegoat, that you acted in accordance with regulations, and that you did not violate the Letter of Instruction (LOI), and therefore did not deserve NJP and DFC. The Board noted that your Commanding Officer issued the 26 February 2016 LOI to address your shortcomings in leadership and communication skills, as well as substandard performance as a chief petty officer. In April 2016, two equal opportunity (EO) complaints were filed against you after you held training on the subject of fraternization. You assert that you held the training after advising your chain of command regarding two cases of alleged fraternization within your division, and nothing was done about it. Your Commanding Officer directed a Command Investigation into the EO complaints, and the investigating officer found that you continued to create a hostile work environment in your division. On 23 May 2016, you received NJP for two specifications of violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice. You appealed the NJP, and the NJP appeal authority, after considering your statement with all supporting documents and the comments of your Commanding Officer, granted your appeal and dismissed Charge 1, Specification 1 (i.e., that you created a hostile work environment); and denied your appeal with respect to Charge 1, Specification 2 (i.e., —that you violated the Letter of Instruction dated 26 February 2016). The appeal authority ordered the PLOR to be amended accordingly. The Board noted that you were also ordered to temporary duty to the pending decision of your Commanding Officer’s request for your DFC. Despite your appeal of the DFC request, the Deputy, Chief of Naval Personnel approved your DFC due to misconduct. With regard to your NJP, the Board determined that the Navy followed all of its procedures for awarding NJP, including appellate review pursuant to the Manual for Courts-Martial. Likewise. The Board also determined that the administrative procedures for enlisted DFC under MILPERSMAN 1616-010 were correctly followed. Lastly, the Board determined that your Commanding Officer was well within his discretionary authority to impose NJP and request your DFC, and disagreeing with the action taken against you does not make it improper. With regard to your Evals, the Board noted that you are contesting one Special/Regular, and two Periodic/Regular Evals issued to you by the Commanding Officer, The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO that the Evals are valid as written and filed, in accordance with the applicable Navy Performance Evaluation System guidance. Additionally, the Board concurred with the AO that your two Periodic/Concurrent Evals are valid as written, and modification of these two Evals 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, 8/23/2021 Executive Director