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

Docket No: 5901-17 
MAR 05 2019 

From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:    Secretary of the Navy 
  
Subj:  REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF  

Ref:   (a) 10 U.S.C. §1552 
       (b) SECNAVINST 1420.1B 

Encl:  (1) DD Form 149 

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a commissioned officer in the Navy, 
filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting his official military personnel file (OMPF) be 
corrected by granting the convening of an FY-14 Navy Active-Duty Navy Commander Line 
Special Selection Board ("FY-14 SSB"), grant him authorization to communicate with the 
President of the FY-14 SSB including material that post-dates the original convene date of the 
FY-14 Promotion Selection Board, and to remove his failure of selection (FOS) incurred by the 
FY-19 Navy Active-Duty Navy Commander Line Promotion Selection Board.
 
2. The Board consisting of               , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 
6 November 20 18, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below 
should be taken on the available evidence of record.  Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the 
enclosures, relevant portions of the naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of 
error and injustice, finds as follows: 

    a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available 
under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy. 

    b. On 3 December 2009, Petitioner received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for violation of 
the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 134 (conduct unbecoming an officer and a 
gentleman), and was awarded a punitive letter of reprimand. 

    c. On 16 November 2010, a Board of Inquiry convened and recommended Petitioner not be 
retained on active duty in the Navy.  Ultimately, on 30 June 2011, Petitioner was honorably 
discharged by reason of misconduct due to minor infractions. 

    d. On 5 February 2013, the FY-14 Navy Active-Duty Navy Commander Line Promotion 
Selection Board convened. If not for his discharge, Petitioner would have been considered 
eligible, in-zone. 

    e. On 9 February 2015, the BCNR directed errors in Petitioner's record be corrected. ln this 
regard, the Board concluded the imposition of NJP and improper convening of the BOI were 
based on a lack of impartiality of the investigating officer, unlawful command influence, 
improper disclosure by the investigating officer of witness statements to other witnesses, 
resulting in a failure for Petitioner to receive impartial flag review ofthe NJP. The Board 
directed all reference of NJP, BOI, discharge, and any related material be removed from 
Petitioner's OMPF. Further, all rights, privileges, and property affected by virtue of the NJP be 
restored, and his discharge set aside.  Lastly, Petitioner's be reinstated on active duty and his 
record corrected to reflect continuous service from the date he was discharged. Petitioner was 
reinstated on active duty on 17 October 2017. 

    f. On 13 February 2018, the FY-19 Navy Active-Duty Navy Commander Line Promotion 
Selection Board convened. Petitioner was included in the eligible population (above-zone, not 
previously considered) and failed selection.  Per reference (b), Petitioner's eligibility should 
have been deferred. Specifically, "[o]fficers who would be eligible for consideration by a 
promotion board as an in zone or above zone eligible within one year of placement on the ADL 
shall be informed that their eligibility for such consideration will be deferred ...." Deferment of 
eligibility is intended to provide officers who otherwise would have been in zone or above zone 
an opportunity to obtain active duty experience, qualifications, and significant evaluation before 
being considered by a promotion selection board. 

    g. In his application at enclosure (1), Petitioner argued that if not for the errors in his record, 
which were later corrected by the BCNR, he would have been eligible for the FY-14 Navy 
Active-Duty Navy Commander Line Special Selection Board. Further, because he was 
erroneously discharged 19 months prior to the convening of the FY-14 Promotion Selection 
Board, he is now at a disadvantage if considered by the FY-14 SSB, unless he is granted the 
opportunity to provide material that post-dates the original convene date of the FY-14 Promotion 
Selection Board. Petitioner argued that granting this request would allow him the opportunity to 
explain the lack of material during the 19-month period of time prior to the convene date of the 
FY-14 Promotion Selection Board. 

CONCLUSION 

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, especially in light of reference (b), 
the Board finds the existence of an error and injustice warranting relief. In this regard, the Board 
determined that due to Petitioner's erroneous discharge and consequentially being ineligible for 
the FY-14 Navy Active-Duty Navy Commander Line Special Selection Board, an FY-14 SSB 
shall be convened to consider him for promotion selection. Further, that he shall be authorized to 
communicate with the President of the FY-14 SSB any material he deems relevant that postdates 
the original convene date of the FY-14 Promotion Selection Board. The Board also 
determined that, although Petitioner's record was corrected to reflect continuous service from the 
date of his discharge, he had less than one year of actual active duty service before being 
considered for, and failing selection by the FY-19 Promotion Selection Board. The Board 
determined that the spirit and intent of reference (b) required Petitioner's eligibility be deferred 
in order to give him an opportunity to obtain active duty experience, qualifications, and 
significant evaluation before being considered by a promotion selection board. Therefore, the 
Board concluded Petitioner's FY-19 FOS shall be removed. 

RECOMMENDATION 

In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. 

Petitioner's record be corrected by convening an FY-14 Navy Active-Duty Navy Commander 
Line Special Selection Board to consider him for promotion selection. Further, Petitioner shall 
be authorized to communicate with the President of FY-14 SSB any material he deems relevant 
that post-dates the original convene date of the FY-14 Promotion Selection Board. 

Petitioner's record be corrected by removing his failure of selection (FOS) incurred by the FY-19 
Navy Active-Duty Navy Commander Line Promotion Selection Board. 

Petitioner's naval record be corrected so that he will be considered by the earliest possible 
selection board convened to consider officers of his category for promotion to Commander as an 
officer who has not failed of selection for promotion to that grade. 

4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the 
foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter. 

5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures of the 
Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulation, Section 723.6(e)) and 
having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the foregoing 
corrective action, taken under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on 
behalf of the Secretary of the Navy. 




Executive Director