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

Docket No. 3875-18 
SEP 30 1019 


This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10. United tales Code, ection 1552. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record. the Board for Correction of Naval Records (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 of the Board for Correction of Naval Records. sitting in executive session. considered your application on 11 June 2019. 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. In addition. the Board considered the advisory opinion contained in Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OCNO) memorandum 7220 Ser N 130C4/l8U1685 of 17 October 2018; a copy of which was previously provided to you for comment.
 
On 13 June 2017, you were issued official change duty orders (BUPERS order: 1647). On 15 September 2017, you transferred from               and arrived to      for temporary duty under instruction on 16 September 2017. On 22 September 2017, you departed and arrived to                   on 28 September 2017. 

You requested rental car reimbursement. The Board. in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors. to include your assertions. Nevertheless. the majority voted to deny your request because your orders were issued in June 2017, which allowed you three months to contact your detailer to have your orders modified. Lastly. you did not contact the detailer to modify your orders to include a rental car until 13 October 2017, four months after the issuance of your orders. In this connection. the majority did not concur with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. 

The minority voted to grant your request because the detailer confirmed that the rental car was not included into the orders and could not be corrected after you reported to your new Permanent Duty Station. 

It is regretted that the circwnstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon 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 this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a preswnption 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