DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 8994-17 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions oftitle 10 ofthe United States Code, section 1552. 

A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 31January2018. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe 
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 ofthis 
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions ofyour naval record, and 
applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. The enclosed advisory opinions (AO) dated 
31 October 2017 was sent to you for an opportunity to comment prior to being considered by the 
Board. After the 30 day period for comment expired without a response, the case was presented 
to the Board. 

The Board carefully considered your desire to modify the fitness reports for the reporting period 
1June2009 to 14 February 2010 and 1July2012 to 7 June 2013. Specifically, modify the 
fitness reports by moving the comparative assessment mark in Section K-3 from the "5" to the 
"6" block. The Board considered your contention that the Reviewing Officer (RO) dropped the 
mark from the previous report for which he was also the RO but offered no explanation for the 
lower mark, and that the drop in the RO comparative assessment without any associated event or 
comments to justify the drop is an error in the manner in which the RO tracked his profile. The 
Board also considered your contention that a lower mark on consecutive fitness reports, without 
justification, is inconsistent with the Performance Evaluation System Manual·and gives a false 
impression that your performance level dropped. The Board significantly concurred with both 
A Os and concluded that you did not sufficiently substantiate the existence of an error or injustice 
warranting modification of either fitness report. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour 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 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 of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director