Docket No: 6684-20 

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 13 July 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 2 October 2020 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-32).  The AO was provided to you on 27 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 remove your fitness report for the reporting periods 16 March 2017 to 15 March 2018.  The Board considered your contentions that during the reporting period you were temporarily assigned to a command that was not co-located with your parent command.  You also contend that your temporary command drafted an exemplary fitness report, but your parent command completed the report, ranked you against members at your parent command and noted that you were delinquent in a qualification.  You claim that an Individual Training Plan was not established specifying a timeframe to complete the qualification, your ‘Significant Problems’ promotion recommendation eliminated any possibility for you to be competitive for three years, your parent command did not follow the disciplinary requirements set forth in the Navy Performance Evaluation System Manual (EVALMAN) or the temporary command’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOP).  You also claim that you submitted a statement to the fitness report and your statement was not submitted to PERS.  As evidence, you furnished correspondence from a member of your temporary command. 
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO that your fitness report is valid.  In this regard, the Board noted that the EVALMAN permits the temporary command to provide performance information for consideration, however, your parent command maintains Regular report continuity and your reporting senior was required to submit your Periodic report.  The Board determined that your failure to obtain the required paygrade qualifications is a fact, accordingly, your reporting senior (RS) accurately noted your training deficiency.  The Board also determined that your performance trait marks and comments are at the discretion of your RS.  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, 

7/29/21

Executive Directr