Docket No: 6135-20 
 

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 29 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 6 October 2020 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-833).  The AO was provided to you on 13 October 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.  
 
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 reinstate your promotion to E-7 and to remove your adverse material from your official military personnel file (OMPF).  The Board considered your contention that your promotion was withheld and removed from the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Navy Reserve Chief Petty Officer (CPO) promotion list because your Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) was being investigated due to a civil case filed against you during February 2013.  You also contend that you notified your command of the incident and that you kept them informed, however, the Security Officer failed to submit an incident report.  You claim that your investigation was adjudicated before the end of the Chief season, the Department of the Navy Central Adjudication Facility (DONCAF) closed your investigation and reinstated your Secret security clearance.  You also claim that the incident was discovered after answering ‘yes’ to prior civilian judicial matters during a questionnaire for the Enlisted Navy Recruiter Orientation (ENRO), consequently, the Navy Recruiting Command opened an investigation into your JPAS and canceled your orders.  As evidence, you provided correspondence related to your performance and actions after the charges by civil authorities. 
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO.  In this regard, the Board noted that the Superior Court  convicted you of a misdemeanor charge for the possession and sale of counterfeit marks (Honda Airbags).  The Board also noted your selection for promotion to E-7, however, after adjournment of the selection board, adverse or reportable information was discovered.  Accordingly, the Navy Personnel Command informed you that based upon a review of the adverse material the Chief of Navy Personnel (CNP) may remove your name from the list and you were afforded the opportunity to submit matters on your behalf.  The Board determined that the CNP’s decision to remove your name from the FY 2019 Navy Reserve CPO promotion list was valid.  The Board also determined that your adverse material and all relevant material was reviewed according to the Advancement Manual for Enlisted Personnel of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Navy Reserve.  Moreover, as the sole authority for the advancement and removal of Navy personnel from selection list to paygrades E-7 through E-9, the CNP acted within his discretionary authority by removing your name from the promotion list.  
 
Additionally, 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 noted your statements, however, the Board determined your evidence was insufficient to overcome this presumption.  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, 
 
                                                                                         7/15/2021
											 Executive Director