Docket No: 96-20 Ref: Signature Date Dear : This letter is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. 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. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 November 2020. 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 to remove derogatory material from Field Code 17 files of your official military personnel file (OMPF); digital document ID , digital document ID, and digital document ID (total of 17 pages). The Board considered your contention that the adverse material should be removed from your OMPF because you satisfactorily completed the Shoplifting Theft Offender Program Course and did not disobeyed any part of your Pretrial Diversion Agreement. You argue that you have rectified yourself from the March 2014 event and that you continue to strive for the betterment of yourself and the U.S. Navy. The Board also considered your contention that you are academically and professional strong, that you have been promoted to lieutenant, and that you are an outstanding officer and nursing professional; however, the adverse material in her OMPF is hindering your professional opportunities and future promotions. You also argue that the adverse material is not an accurate representation of you. The Board noted that, on 4 March 2014, when you were an ensign, you were arrested and charged with larceny. On 7 August 2014, you entered a pretrial diversion agreement. Subsequently, you completed a Shoplifting Theft Offender Program Course and the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the case against you. On 2015, you were promoted to lieutenant (junior grade) (LTJG). Your promotion was not withheld or delayed because the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) had not received notification of your misconduct prior to your promotion. On 5 November 2015, your commanding officer (CO) submitted a Final Civil Action Report (FCAR) to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command (PERS-834), and noted that no punitive or administrative action had been taken against you by your command. Your CO did not request your Detachment for Cause (DFC), and he did not recommend that you be required to Show Cause before a Board of Inquiry (BOI). On 17 November 2015, you were notified and acknowledged that adverse material will be added to your OMPF. You were afforded an opportunity to submit a statement in response, and your written statement was also filed in your record. On 5 April 2016, PERS-834 notified you that you were not required to show cause, and that adverse material would be filed in your OMPF. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Active-Duty Navy Lieutenant All Fully Qualified Officer List (AFQOL) selection review process identified you for promotion. You were assigned a date of rank of 1 May 2017. However, your promotion was withheld pending review of adverse information. The Chief of Naval Operation (CNO) considered matters pertaining to your adverse information, to include the facts and circumstances regarding your misconduct, your statement requesting promotion to lieutenant, and your CO’s statement endorsing your promotion. On 12 June 2017, the CNO recommended that your name be removed from the FY 2017 Active-Duty Navy Lieutenant AFQOL, noting that your actions fell below the standard of conduct expected of a naval officer, and that you failed to uphold the standards of the Navy Core Values when you committed larceny. The CNO further noted that he did not have the necessary trust and confidence to recommend you for promotion to lieutenant at that time. On 23 June 2017, the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) removed your name from the FY 2017 Active Duty Navy Lieutenant AFQOL. On 26 December 2018, PERS-834 notified you that you would be retained in the Navy, and that adverse material would be added to you OMPF. You were afforded an opportunity to submit a statement in response. The FY 2018 Active-Duty Navy Lieutenant AFQOL selection review process identified you for promotion. Your promotion was withheld pending review of adverse information. Following SECNAV’s review, the Secretary of Defense approved your promotion, and you were promoted with a date of rank and effective date of 1 October 2017. The Board determined that, although you completed a diversionary program, MILPERSMAN 1611-010 provides the FCAR will remain in a member's official record. Moreover, pursuant to MILPERSMAN 1611-010, you were afforded an opportunity to review and submit any additional matters in response to the materials prior to them being entered into your OMPF. The Board determined that you provide no evidence showing the Navy should change your OMPF because the adverse material is purportedly hindering your professional opportunities and future promotions. 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 attachés 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,