DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 7849-20 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 14 September 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 for promotion to Senior Chief Petty Officer (SCPO/E-8) and back pay and allowance or promotion without back pay and allowances. The Board considered your contentions that you had a dispute with a white supervisor, and as a result, you faced professional retaliation; lost job opportunities; received poorly scheduled work hours; you missed an opportunity for advancement to SCPO; received a non-competitive performance evaluation; received unfair written counseling; and you were transferred to a different Division. You also contend that your request to rescind your request for retirement was denied, although you had not reached High Year Tenure (HYT) and could have continued your career for an additional four to six years if you were advanced to E-8. Through counsel you were advised that your 30 April 2015 counseling and adverse actions following the 28 May 2015 incident suggest arbitrary and capricious actions not supported by evidence. Your counsel also advised that according to JAGMAN 0203, before any adverse personnel action is taken against a service member, an investigation should be conducted into the facts and circumstances. You claim the incident that occurred during May 2015 was not your fault and this was validated by the Inspector General (IG) investigation. The Board noted that you were issued a Record of Enlisted Counseling on 30 April 2015 for your lack of attention to detail, lack of follow-up, and for allowing an E-6 to take the lead since your arrival at the command. The entry also detailed the Navy leadership principals, your short comings, and Navy leadership traits. The Board also noted that you were issued a Record of Enlisted Counseling on 28 May 2015 for your lack of attention to detail, loss of confidence amongst your peers, failure to inform your chain of command in a timely manner, failure to pass pertinent information to your sailors, and for allowing an E-6 to carry the vast load of duties and responsibilities. The Board determined that your counseling entries are valid. In this regard, the Board noted that your counselings were conducted according to the Navy Performance Evaluation System Manual (EVALMAN). The Board determined that your Record of Enlisted Counselings were properly used to document counseling actions not prescribed in other directives. The Board noted, too, the redacted Preliminary Investigation, however, the Board determined that your chain of command had sufficient factual knowledge of the circumstance and your performance to determine that your counseling entry was warranted. The Board also determined that contrary to the advice of your counsel, your counselings were not arbitrary or capricious, an investigation is not required to issue a Record of Enlisted Counseling, your counselings are not considered adverse actions, and did not result in punitive action or an adverse fitness report. Concerning your contentions of retaliation based on racial bias, the Board found no evidence of racial bias or retaliation against you and you provided none. Concerning your contention that your request to cancel your retirement was denied, the Board determined that your Enlisted Personnel Action Request to rescind your retirement lacked sufficient justification for the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) (PERS-834) to grant your request. The Board also determined that once your request for retirement was submitted and processed, NPC was not obligated to grant your request to rescind your retirement. Based upon the foregoing determinations, the Board found your evidence insufficient to warrant reinstatement to active duty, consideration for promotion to E-8, and back pay and allowances. 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, 9/24/2021 Executive Director