DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
             
Docket No: 11148-18                                                           
Ref: Signature Date 

This is in reference to your latest reconsideration request.  You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised in our letter dated 21 July 2015 that your application was disapproved.  Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004).  After careful and conscientious consideration of your new matters, the Board found the evidence was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has again been denied. 

Your request has been carefully examined by a three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session on 14 January 2020.  The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application and the matters submitted in support of your application.  The Board also considered the enclosed 17 March 2015 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-00J), which was previously provided to you.  Although you were afforded an opportunity to submit a rebuttal, you did not do so.   

The Board carefully considered your request to remove your fitness report for the reporting period 1 July 2013 to 14 May 2014.  The Board considered your contentions that the report’s Section I comments do not coincide with your attribute markings, and that the report “indicates a false narrative of performance in RS value.” Your new evidence consists of an undated letter of recommendation for promotion from your reporting senior (RS) that purportedly “clearly articulates superior performance” and, you contend, does not coincide with the attribute markings.
 
The Board however, substantially concurred with the AO, noting that each reporting period is for a finite period, and that the report’s marks and relative value are reflective of how you fell out amongst all master sergeants your RS reported on, up to and including the report submitted.  The Board determined that your RS’s markings do not conflict with his narrative description of your performance and accomplishments during the reporting period.  Additionally, the Board noted that your reviewing officer had sufficient observation of your performance and accomplishments during the reporting period, and he concurred with your RS’s assessment.  The Board also noted that your former RS had been your RS for a total of 24 months, and that the letter of recommendation for promotion is not specific to just the period of time during the contested report’s period of observation, and your former RS does not claim that his assessment during the contested reporting period was inaccurate.  

It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition are such that favorable action cannot be taken.  You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149.  New matters are those not previously presented to or considered by the Board.  In the absence of new matters 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 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, 


4/2/2020