Docket No 5552-20
 
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 application on 28 May 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.  
 
The Board carefully considered your request that a special selection board (SSB) be convened to consider you for promotion by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Active Duty Staff Corps O-5 Promotion Selection Board.  Specifically, the Board considered your contention the precept was in error because it “falsely characterized an assignment” as one for a junior lieutenant when the assignment is truly an assignment for a lieutenant commander.  Because you served in this assignment as a lieutenant commander, you contend the precept “created the impression that [you] did not serve in assignments appropriate and challenging for an officer of [your] grade” and further creating the appearance that you were not “fully qualified” or among the “best qualified” among officers whose assignments were “accurately characterized.”  The Board also considered the contention you raised regarding the review of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps community brief.  Lastly, the Board considered your contention the individuals responsible for reviewing and correcting the precept are the same individuals who reviewed your previously submitted SSB request and this caused a conflict of interest in evaluating whether you should be granted a SSB.   
 
The Board, however, noted you provided insufficient evidence that the promotion selection board members incorrectly or unjustly applied the community brief and career progression slides or that the guidance impacted their decision at the FY 2019 promotion selection board to not select you for promotion to commander.  Even considering your contentions, the Board noted the guidance given regarding the community brief and the specific disclaimer that “strict adherence to the career progressions depicted in the slides is not a prerequisite for promotion” and concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice.  Further, the Board determined you provided insufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity in the review process for the community brief or in the promotion selection board member’s discharge of their duties at the board.  Based on the available evidence, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to warrant granting your requested relief.   
 
The Board also considered your request to direct the Navy JAG Corps to correct the community brief and identify all officers who were affected by the contended error.  The Board, however, noted your requested relief does not fall within its authority and purview and declined to consider your contentions regarding these request.   
 
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, 
 6/21/2021
 Executive Director