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

Docket No: 4041-18 
Ref: Signature Date 


This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10 United States Code, Section 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, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 March 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, a 26 July 2018 advisory opinion (AO) from Navy Personnel Command (PERS-32), and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.
     
The Board carefully considered your desire to remove the evaluation reports for the reporting periods 13 March 2015 to 22 January 2016 and 23 January 2016 to 15 March 2016.  The Board considered your contention that you received the adverse Evaluation Report without being counseled prior to the evaluation, you have no nonjudicial punishments (NJP), report chits or disciplinary issues.  You also contend that you were not afforded the opportunity to appeal the adverse evaluation. 

The Board noted that the Reporting Senior (RS) submitted a special evaluation report for the reporting period 13 March 2015 to 22 January 2016 removing your recommendation for advancement.  In block 41 of the contested evaluation, the RS commented that the “quality of work, professional knowledge and personal job accomplishment is far below what is expected of a second class petty officer.”  The Board concurred with the AO, that the Evaluation Manual allows the RS to submit a special evaluation to withdraw an enlisted promotion advancement or recommendation for advancement/retention.  The Board also noted that the RS for the reporting period 23 January 2016 to 15 March 2016, is a different RS, and he/she commented that “significant improvement or declination was not observed since the last evaluation” and you “continue to struggle with in-rate knowledge and lack the initiative to correct performance discrepancies.” The Board determined that both RSs appropriately justified the adverse nature of the reports. 

Regarding your contention that you received the adverse evaluation without being counseled prior to the evaluation.  The Board noted that the RS for the contested reporting period 13 March 2015 to 22 January 2016 commented that you were verbally counseled on 24 September, 6 October, 17 December and 18 December for deficiencies in several areas, but there has been no effort to correct the deficiencies.  The Board agreed with the AO, that the RS does not have to issue NJP, report chits or any other form of disciplinary action to document substandard performance. 

Regarding your contention that you were not afforded an opportunity to appeal the adverse evaluations is without merit.  The Board noted that you signed each report acknowledging that “you have seen the report, been apprised of your performance, and understand your right to submit as statement,” which you chose not to submit.  
 
The Board determined each RS clearly and convincingly documented your performance as below acceptable standards during the reporting periods. The Board concluded that both Evaluation Reports are valid and prepared in accordance with the Evaluation Manual, thus the reports will remain in your record. 

It is regretted that the circumstances 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.  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 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, 
6/28/2019