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

Docket No. 9145-17 
APR 30 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 §1552. Your case was reconsidered in accordance 
with procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Secretary of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 
2004). You were previously denied relief by this Board on 19 March 2002, and 6 April 2006. 
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence 
submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. 
Consequently, yom application has been denied. 

Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of 
justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your case on its merits. A three-member 
panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your 
application on 30 November 2018. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be 
furnished upon request. Yom 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 of your application, together with all 
material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record and applicable 
statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion 
contained in Navy Personnel Command memorandum 1430 PERS 8031/0294 of 18 July 2018; a 
copy of which was previously provided to you for comment. A copy of this advisory opinion is 
again enclosed. 

Your application stated, "It is respectfully requested you go back to all my letters for an honest 
review." It further states, "I believe that all my records was not given a fair chance, the mistakes 
they made is clear that the Navy do not admit their mistakes and it is clear that I have submitted 
all their mistake. Please read the letter to Mr.                dated April 29, 2002." The 
Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially 
mitigating factors, to include your assertions. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that although 
some of the evidence you provided were new, it was not material to have the voting members 
grant your petition. The Board found that you took the HM1 Navy Wide Advancement Exam in 
1972. However, you did not advance from the exam because you missed the Minimum Multiple 
Requirement of 143.32 by .22 points (143.10). Your award points were checked and so were 
your evaluation points, and it was found that all your points were calculated correctly. The 
Board further determined that even if the Navy had found 1 point to add to your exam score 
allowing you to the cutoff and make Board, there was no guarantee that the Board would have 
selected you for Chief (HMC). On 5 November 1973, you transferred to the Fleet Reserve as a 
retired HMI/E-6. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments 
contained in the advisory opinion. 

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, 



Executive Director