DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 5603-20 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, as well as the 14 August 2020 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-32). The AO was provided to you on 25 August 2020, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response. When you did not provide a response, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration. The Board carefully considered your request to remove your fitness reports for the reporting period 1 February 2015 to 31 October 2015 (extended to 30 November 2015). The Board considered your contentions that your fitness report was unfairly punitive, your block 41 comments misconstrue the actual events, and your reporting senior (RS) failed to place a recommendation in block 40. You claim that you were in the Navy Reserve when you began a relationship with a prior enlisted civilian, he reenlisted in the Navy Reserves during June 2015, and you were married during August 2015. You also claim that you consulted with your officer-in-charge before he enlisted and they believed it was a non-issue because you had a prior existing relationship. You argue that you were accused of fraternization with an enlisted member from 29 June 2015 to 10 July 2015, there was no investigation, no charges pressed, and neither you nor your husband received non-judicial punishment (NPJ) for fraternization under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO that your fitness report is valid. In this regard, the Navy Performance Evaluation Systems Manual (EVALMAN) provides that an RS should take into account misconduct that has been established through reliable evidence to the RS’ satisfaction. The Board noted that according to U.S. Navy Regulation 1165, such relationships between officers and enlisted service members is prohibited and there is no provision for prior existing relationships. The Board also noted that your block 41 comments substantiates your 2.0 performance trait grade and promotion recommendation. The Board determined that your command was not required to conduct an investigation or to impose NJP to document misconduct. The Board also determined that your RS’s failure to complete block 40 is not a basis to remove your fitness report. 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,