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


Docket No: 9365-17 
MAR 12 2019 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552. 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, your application 
has been denied. 

A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 6 November 2018. The names and votes of 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 of your application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

The Board carefully considered your desire to remove the adverse evaluation and counseling 
record for the reporting period 16 September 2013 to 2 March 2014, and for advancement to E-8 
with all back pay and allowances. The Board considered your contentions that you were 
erroneously issued and adverse evaluation after you were wrongly accused of making 
disparaging remarks about a senior officer and encouraging subordinate sailors to drink alcohol 
excessively. The Board also considered your contention that the non-punitive letter of caution 
was used in a punitive manner, and that you were denied advancement due to the adverse 
evaluation. 

The Board concluded the Reporting Senior (RS) must justify below average markings and his 
impression ofyour performance in block 41 of the evaluation. Each mark of 1.0 is not only for 
below average performance, it is also an indication of a lack of improvement in those areas. 
Therefore, the RS determined your performance as Security Manager was necessary to include in 
his comments. According to regulations, the RS is required to comment on poor performance or 
misconduct that has been established through reliable evidence to his satisfaction. Further, you 
did not sufficiently provide evidence to contradict the RS or to substantiate your assertions. The 
Board could not corroborate your contention that the evaluation was written in retaliation, as the 
RS was not one of the contentious individuals mentioned in your statement. While you deny the 
incidents noted in section 41, the Board concluded, that the presumption of regularity applies to 
the submission of the evaluation. Thus, you have not overcome the burden of proof that the 
contested evaluation is anything but an objective, accurate, and honest assessment of your 
performance and incidents that occurred during that reporting period. 

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 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