Docket No: 5371-20 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 22 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. 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 reverse the decision of your 15 September 2017 Competency Review Board (CRB). The Board considered your contention that you did not have the opportunity to examine all of the evidence to be considered by the CRB at a reasonable time prior to the CRB. You also contend that you were not informed in writing of the names of the CRB members, the senior member of the board was biased against you, and you did not have a meaningful opportunity to prepare a challenge to his presence on the board. You further contend that according to the Marine Corps Enlisted Promotions Manual (MARCORPROMAN) neither the convening authority nor any officer in the chain of command who may review the CRB can serve as a member. You claim that according to the MARCORPROMAN, you should have been notified in writing of the identity of the members appointed to the CRB, instead you were informed orally of the identity of the senior board member. You also claim that the senior member was biased because he had prior knowledge based upon his billet as the S-3 officer and your assignment with the Marksmanship Training Unit. The Board noted that your CRB unanimously found that a preponderance of the evidence supported a determination of professional incompetence and that the evidence supported your reduction to E-6. The Board also noted that your CRB Report was reviewed by four general officers in your chain of command, the findings of your CRB were upheld and the CRB process was found to be legally sufficient. The Board noted, too, that you appealed the CRB determination and your appeal was denied. Concerning your contention that you did not have a reasonable opportunity to review the evidence against you, the Board noted that during the CRB process, you were afforded the opportunity to review all documents unfamiliar to you and you indicated that you had no objections. The Board determined that although you were unable to review some evidence prior to the CRB, during the process of the CRB, you were afforded the opportunity to review the evidence. Concerning your contention that you were not informed in writing of the name of the senior board member, the Board determined that although you were not informed in writing, you were notified of his identity prior to the CRB and during the CRB you were afforded the opportunity to question any member of the CRB in relation to any matter that may constitute a grounds for challenge or cause. Having knowledge of the senior member’s billet, the Board found no evidence that you expressed any concerns or challenged his participation as a board member. Moreover, the Board found no evidence that the senior member of the CRB was bias or that his presence as the senior board member prejudiced you in any manner and you provided none. Concerning your contention that neither the convening authority nor any officer in the chain of command who may review the CRB can serve as a member, the Board determined that your reference to the aforementioned restriction is misplaced, only general officer’s in your chain of command act in the capacity to review CRBs. Moreover, the Board relies on a presumption of regularity to support the official action of public officers and, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, will presume that they have properly discharged their official duties. The Board found your evidence insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity and also determined that the General Courts-Martial Convening Authority acted within his discretionary authority when directing your reduction. 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, 7/6/2021 Executive Director