DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 5883-16 AUG 1 5 2016 Dear , This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with new Board for Correction ofNaval Records procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Secretary of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). Your case was previously denied by the Board on 22 June 2016. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 July 2016. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings ofthis Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour 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 1400/3 MMPR dated 21July2016 was also considered. A copy of this advisory opinion is enclosed. However, after careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board determined that while your request does contain new information not previously considered by the Board, specifically your letter dated 6 July 2016, it does not warrant relief. Accordingly, your request has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. The Board carefully considered your contentions that you should be restored all rights and privileges resulting in the removal ofyour NJP and corresponding fitness report and that you met due diligence in correcting your record prior to the convening of the FY2011 Selection, but should be granted relief dating back to the FY2009 Selection Board as that is when you were first eligible to be promoted. The Board concluded that the DD Form 149, Application for Correction ofMilitary Record, dated 18 April 2011, while submitted prior to the convening ofthe FY2011 Selection Board, did not represent showing due diligence, as this was completed just one day prior to the convening ofthe board. While you state that your promotion to should be backdated to the FY2009 selection board because that was when you were first eligible, being eligible for promotion and being selected for promotion are not one in the same. There is no way to determine ifthe fitness report had not been in your record at the time of the selection board that you would or would not have been selected. Restoring all rights and privileges due to the removal ofthe NJP does not result in a backdated promotion simply because you were eligible. In conclusion, the Board determined that the proper corrective action was taken by the Board on 7 March 2016 by backdating your promotion to to the FY2013 Selection Board and no further relief is warranted. It is regrettable that the circumstances ofyour case are such that the Board will not process any additional reviews and this matter is considered a final action. However, if you wish to continue to seek relief you will need to present your concerns to a court ofappropriate jurisdiction. Sincerely,