DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON. VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 4304-18 Ref: Signature Date Dear This is in reference to your 8 May 2018 reconsideration request. You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised in our letter dated 5 September 2017 that your application was disapproved. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). After careful and conscientious consideration of your new and material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board, the Board found the evidence was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has again been denied. Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance, with or without counsel, will not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. In your previous petition to the Board (Docket ), you requested “all adverse, derogatory and/or questionable misrepresentation/reflection of my performance associated with or as a result of the information presented in and/or investigation results from Inspector General (IG) cases ” and “congressional inquiry response dated 12 July 2016 be modified in a way that properly reflects/represents my performance and/or simply removed and replaced by an official letter signed by POTUS explaining the reasons for the errors, purpose for the letter and how the errors are adequately corrected through the intent spelled out and explained in the letter.” You contested the validity of your fitness reports (FITREPs) issued during the period from 1 November 2011 through 22 May 2013, and requested the convening of a special selection board (SSB). Your application has been carefully examined by a three-member panel of the Board sitting in executive session on 16 July 2019. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. (Instructions on requesting your BCNR case files are available at https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/.) Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application and any material submitted in support of your application. The Board also considered the enclosed 27 July 2018 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-32) and your rebuttal of 31 August 2018. Although the Board determined that you did not submit any new matters with your application, it considered your case on the merits because it previously did not render a decision regarding your request for an SSB, and because you contend that FITREPs not previously considered are also in error and unjust. Your current petition requests that the FITREPs issued at HM-14 be removed, replaced, or fixed to accurately reflect your performance at the squadron—specifically, to include your high water competitive FITREP to reflect verbiage showing the strongest recommendation for promotion to commander and aviation operational command. The Board noted that this request includes two additional FITREPs, issued during the period from 18 March 2011 to 31 October 2011, that were not previously considered by the Board. The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO that nothing in your petition substantiates your claim that your Reporting Seniors (RSs) acted for illegal or improper purposes or that your FITREPs lacked rational support. Forced distribution limits the number of “Early Promote” and “Must Promote” recommendations in a summary group. You were ranked in competitive peer groups ranging from six to seven members, and it was within your RSs’ authority to rank each member based on their observation and determination, and within the guidelines of the EVALMAN. You were under the observation of different RSs, and your ranking for each FITREP was consistent. Your promotion recommendation on the first three FITREPs was Promotable, and you improved to Must Promote on the next report. Your final FITREP was a “detachment of individual” report in which you received an Early Promote recommendation. Additionally, the trait grades, comments, and promotion recommendation assigned on each report are not adverse, and you were graded at or above standards. You also request the Board include verbiage in your record showing and describing the errors and injustices that the Board’s corrections overturn and why, and include as part of the record an understanding of who the primary offenders were, their names, what role they played in the offenses, and any outcomes in their dispositions from any proceedings, and for the Board to solicit a more thorough explanation about why the Navy IG did not fully investigate your case, and why the Navy IG or Department of Defense IG did not waive the time requirement. The Board, however, did not find any probable material error or injustice. Moreover, the Board is not an investigative body. The function of the BCNR is to consider applications properly before it for the purpose of determining the existence of error or injustice in the naval records of current and former members of the Navy and Marine Corps, and to make recommendations to the Secretary or to take corrective action on the Secretary's behalf when authorized. With regard to your request that an SSB be convened, the Board determined that, because your record was not in error or unjust, an SSB is not warranted. 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, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149. 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.