DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 5155-17 
SEP 15 2017 

Dear

This is in reference to your latest reconsideration request dated 8 June 2017. You previously petitioned the Board and were advised in our letter dated 22 May 2017 that your application was disapproved. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board for Correction of Naval Records procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Secretary o[Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 

Your current request has been carefully examined by a three-member panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session on 15 September 2017. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application and any material submitted in support of your application. 

You presented as evidence your contention that your Reporting Senior (RS) did not have sufficient observation time or meaningful personal contact prior to submitting the contested fitness report (FITREP) for the reporting period I 0 March 2015 to 14 May 2015. The Board also considered your argument that the FITREP is administratively inaccurate because (1) your RS did not comment why he was invoking an exception to policy by writing an observed FITREP with an observation period less than 90 days, (2) you were not counseled by your RS, (3) your RS was also the investigating officer conducting the command investigation, and (4) FITREP caused your failure of selection to lieutenant colonel. Although your new evidence was not previously considered by the Board, the Board concluded that you did not sufficiently demonstrate an injustice warranting removal of the contested FITREP or for Sections D, E, F, G, and I ofthe contested FITREP to be stricken from calculation and view ofyour official military personnel file. The Board noted that the RS's loss oftrust and confidence in your ability to command, and your subsequent detachment for cause required the reporting officials to report the adversity. Additionally, the Board noted that the reporting officials are not required to be co­located in order for observation to occur. Thus, although your RS did not explain in the FITREP why he was invoking an exception to policy, and you were not co-located during the entire reporting period, the Board concluded that the FITREP is valid. Finally, the Board determined that you did not sufficiently justify a reason to promote you to Lieutenant Colonel after two Promotion Selection Boards did not find you best and fully qualified for promotion when compared to your peers. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour reconsideration petition are such that favorable action cannot be taken again. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board. In the absence of sufficient new and material evidence for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate j urisdiction. 
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