DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No. 03-16 


Dear , 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of 10 USC 1552. 

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 12 October 2016. Your allegations oferror and injustice were 
reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the 
proceedings ofthis Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your 
application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The advisory opinion provided by HQMC memo 
1610 MMRP-13/PERB <ltd 2 Dec 15, was sent to you on 2 December 2015 for an opportunity to 
comment prior to being considered by the Board. A copy ofthis advisory opinion is again 
enclosed. After the 30 day period for comment expired without a response, the case was 
presented to the Board. 

After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found that the 
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or 
injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in 
the advisory opinion. The contested report covers a period of 138 days. Per MCO P1610.7F, 
paragraph 3005.2, periods of30 or more consecutive days when either the MRO or the RS was 
not physically present to perform his or her duties at the reporting command or organization 
constitute non-availability and do not count when determining minimum observation time for 
submission ofan observed report. Therefore; the 28 days ofpost deployment leave and the 18 
days absent for Exercise Ulchi Freedom Guardian are not considered periods ofnon-availability, 
as they are less than 30 days. The 30 days you claim to be TAD for Exercise Terminal Fury 
would have warranted an FD report and there is no such report. Regardless, as this was the only 
30 consecutive date range that you claim you were absent during the reporting period, the total 
number of observed report days would have been 108 vice 138, within the required observation 
time to have an observed report. Additionally, the RS believed that he had sufficient observation 
time and stated so in Section I. Furthermore, the RO had no objection to the RS 's observed 
assessment as he certified the validity ofthe report by signing Section K. Accordingly, your 
application has been denied. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe panel will be furnished 
upon request. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. 
You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material 
evidence within one year from the date ofthe Board's decision. New evidence is evidence not 
previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. In this regard, it is 
important to keep in mind that a presumption ofregularity attaches to all official records. 
Consequently, when applying for a correction ofan official naval record, the burden is on the 
applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director