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

Docket No: 8615-17 
FEB 04 2019 


Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of Title 10, United States Code, section 1552. After careful and conscientious 
consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insurficient to 
establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application 
has been denied. 

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 8 January 2019. The names and votes or the members of the 
panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in 
accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this 
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted or your application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record. and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. A Navy Personnel Command (PER -32) advisory 
opinion (AO) dated 14 March 2018 was sent to you for an opportunity to comment prior to being 
considered by the Board. After the period for comment expired without a response, the case was 
presented to the Board. 

The Board carefully considered your desire to expunge from your official military personnel file 
your fitness report for the reporting period 15 April 2015 to 30 April 2016 and the fitness report 
extension letter. Additionally, the Board considered your request to convene an 06 Active-Duty 
Line Special election Board (SSB), and to remove your failures of selection (FO) incurred by 
the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 and FY 19 Navy Active-Duty Line Captain Promotion election 
Boards. The Board considered your contentions that the contested fitness report docs not comply 
with avy regulations, and of injustice in the abuse and manipulation of the fitness report system 
to cause harm to your career without due process. You also contend that your orders and transfer 
timeline were manipulated to prevent the issuance of a fitness report that would have been 
favorable. You argued that (1) using the term "removed" without going through the appropriate 
detachment for cause requirements and providing appropriate due process demonstrates the 
contested fitness report violated Navy regulations; (2) evidence shows that there was no loss of 
"trust and confidence" in your ability to perform your duties; (3) your Reporting Senior (RS) 
falsely stated you were "attempting to receive" outside compensation, even though it was not 
proven that you were; (4) your RS stating "related to official duties" is falsely applied; (5) your 
fitness report was used as punishment while avoiding a formal investigation; and (6) the 
nonpunitive letter of caution (NPLOC) was used for punitive purposes. 

The Board noted that a preliminary inquiry (PI) was conducted into alleged Joint Ethics 
Regulation (JER) violations and alleged violations of the Department of the Navy Public Affairs 
Policy by you, a Public Affairs officer. On 8 March 2016, you were issued a NPLOC due to 
your failure to comply with JER and Secretary of the Navy guidance and regulations concerning 
commercial writing and speaking. You were also issued a Periodic/Regular fitness report for the 
reporting period 15 April 2015 to 30 April 2016, extended to 25 May 2016 with a Detachment of 
Individual fitness report. You acknowledged the contested fitness report's contents when you 
signed it on 29 June 2016 and elected not to submit a statement. Subsequently, you failed 
selection by the FY18 and FY19 Navy Active-Duty Line Captain Promotion Selection Boards 
and retired on 1 October 2018. 

The Board substantially concurred with the AO. PERS-32 determined that the contested fitness 
report is a valid report and found the evidence insufficient to establish the existence of probable 
injustice. The term "removed" is not in violation of Navy regulations, and there is no mention of 
detachment for cause. PERS-32 determined that your RS was within his authority to remove you 
from your duties, and you did not show that the RS acted without rational support or acted for 
illegal or improper purposes. The Pl findings support the fitness report. The Board noted that, 
per the Manual of the Judge Advocate General, JAGINST 5800.70 (JAG MAN) "[a] nonpunitive 
letter will be kept a personal matter between the member and the superior issuing the 
nonpunitive letter ... the letter may not be forwarded to the Chief of Naval Personnel, quoted in 
or appended to fitness reports, or included as enclosures to investigations." The Board 
concluded that there was no improper content or use of the contested fitness report or the 
extended report. Based on the Board's conclusion that the contested fitness report shall remain 
in your record, the Board also concluded that there is no justification to remove your FOSs or to 
grant the convening of an SSB. 

Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal 
appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issue(s) 
involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and 
considered your case based on the evidence of record. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken 
at this time. 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 this regard it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all 
official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the 
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely,