DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 6470-18 Ref: Signature Date This letter is in reference to your 14 August 2018 reconsideration request. You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) on two occasions and were advised that your applications had been 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 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. 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. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 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 applications, 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 request for promotion to captain (Capt)/O-3. The Board considered your initial contention that the 27 February 1981 letter from Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC), which notified you of your responsibility to provide evidence that you were physically qualified for promotion, was mailed to your previous address and you only became aware of your selection in 2012 after requesting a copy of your military records. The Board also considered your current contention that the timeline relied upon by the Board in its 7 December 2016 decision did not support its findings. You assert that the letter was received one day before the completion of your service obligation, and that you submitted your resignation request on 26 May 1981 without knowledge of the letter. You also contend that, contrary to the Board’s justification, Marine Forces Reserve (MARFORRES) did not inform you of your options for Reserve participation, and had you been informed of the pending promotion and options for participation, you would have delayed the timing of your resignation until after your promotion. The Board noted its 21 May 2015 decision denying your request for promotion, which concluded that it was unable to find that you were physically qualified for promotion before your resignation from the Marine Corps Reserve. The Board also noted its 7 December 2016 decision again denying your request for promotion, which concluded that, although you provided evidence of your physical qualification, MARFORRES would have notified you for not meeting participation requirements and would have given you the option to either resign or be transferred to the inactive status list, since you were not a drilling Reservist. Regarding your contention that the Board’s timeline did not support its findings, the Board noted that the letter was dated 27 February 1981, your end of obligated service was 28 February 1981, when you accepted a reserve commission, and you requested resignation on 26 May 1981 and were separated on 18 June 1981. The Board also noted that the MMPR-1 advisory opinion stated that the member senior to you on the promotion selection list was still not promoted in 1982. The Board determined that your promotion would have required you to remain actively affiliated with a Reserve unit throughout this time and until the end of your obligated service after being promoted. The Board, however, found no indication of your intent to remain affiliated with the Reserves. Instead, after accepting your Reserve commission, you did not actively participate or affiliate with a Reserve unit, and you resigned three months later. The Board determined that your lack of Reserve participation is the basis for the Board’s previous justification regarding action that would have been taken by MARFORRES. Moreover, the Board determined that the Marine Corps was not obligated to ensure you were personally notified about your promotion selection, as the promotion selection board’s results were publicly disseminated via published naval message (ALNAV). Further, the letter of 27 February 1981 notifying you of your responsibility to prove you were physically qualified was mailed to your home of record. It was your responsibility to ensure the Marine Corps had the most current personal information to ensure your receipt of correspondence. The Board found no evidence that you provided HQMC with your correct address before the end of your obligated service. The Board thus concluded that there is no probable material error or injustice warranting corrective action. 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, 10/31/2019