DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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


Docket No, 7481-17 
DEC 19 2017 

Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of 10 USC 1552. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with procedures that 
conform to Lipsman v. Secretary ofthe Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). You were 
previously denied relief by the Board on 24 March 2017. 

A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 20 October 2017. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe 
panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations of error and iajustice 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, relevant portions of your naval record and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 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, it does not warrant relief. Accordingly, 
your request has been denied. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you should have been afforded the 
opportunity to execute a 4 year reenlistment on 9 August 2014 in order to receive a Zone "A" 
Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB). You assert that an injustice was created when your 
Command Career Counselor failed to provide clear guidance regarding your eligibility for a 
Zone "A" SRB. This impact resulted in a 24 month extension becoming operative and a 
reenlistment executed on 31 August 2016 for a two year term. However, members below the 
grade ofE-7 are required to receive a valid C-Way approval in order to execute reenlistment for 
the requested period. Your military record does not reflect a valid C-Way quota in 2014. The 
act ofnot knowing the requirements for obtaining a valid C-Way quota does not serve as a 
justification for the Navy to permit the authorization ofyour reenlistment request in 2014. 
Moreover, the supporting documentation you provided did not reveal proofthat an injustice was 
created to your naval record. The act ofproviding a letter to the Board contending the Navy's 
recommendation along with a copy ofyour 24 month Individual Career Development Plan did 
not justify the approval ofyour request. Accordingly, the Board determined no error or injustice 
exists in your case. 

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 ofnew 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 jurisdiction. 

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