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

Docket No: 8980-18 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear
 
This is in reference to your 12 October 2018 reconsideration request.  You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised in our letter dated 24 September 2017 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 establis the exxistence 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.

Your application has been carefully examined by a three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session on 11 February 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 any material submitted in support of your application.  Your new matters consisted of your contentions that your former commanding officer’s (CO’s) detachment for cause (DFC) request violated MILPERSMAN 1611 and contravened BUPERS Instruction 1610.10C, and that a prior panel’s decision letter (docket NR20170001258), violates MILPERSMAN 1611-020. 

The Board carefully considered your request to remove your DFC documents from your official military personnel file. The Board did not consider your request to remove the 16 June 2017 decision letter from your previously considered petition (docket NR20170001258) because that letter was not filed in your OMPF. 

With regard to your contentions that your DFC failed to comply with the Navy’s promulgated regulation and guidelines, and that your former CO’s DFC request violated MILPERSMAN 1611-020 and contravened BUPERS Instruction 1610.10C, the Board determined that these contentions are without merit.  You specifically contend that your former reporting senior (RS), who was also your CO, failed to appropriately use your fitness report (for the reporting period 8 August 2014 to 31 October 2014) because the performance evaluation relied upon nine months of degrading Naval Aviation Maintenance Programs (NAMPs), despite your contention that your RS was unqualified to serve as your RS for two-thirds of that duration, and a handful of reported incidents, which largely occurred before the evaluation period.  You argue that the performance evaluation was not a timely, realistic, and accurate evaluation, as required, and that it constitutes an inappropriate use of your fitness report, in violation of the procedural perquisites prior to initiating a DFC request. 

The Board, however, noted that your RS did not comment on your performance outside of the reporting period. In fact, in his 12 November 2014 request for your DFC, he specifically stated that the performance marks and written comments document your performance deficiencies “during the period in which [he] personally observed [your] performance.” The Board determined that, although he was not your RS until 8 August 2014, nothing prevented him from relying on previous inspection results or comparing them with program reviews that were conducted during the reporting period in order to determine if you were meeting the expectations of a professional career maintenance officer.  Those expectations were provided to you in your 19 September 2014 letter of instruction (LOI), which was issued during the reporting period. In your LOI, you were advised that you had six weeks from the date of the LOI (through 31 October 2014) to “makesignificant and meaningful progress” and that failure to do so “may result in further administrative action to include evaluation of your suitability to continue in your present duty.” The Board concluded that your fitness report for the reporting period 8 August 2014 to 31 October 2014 was a valid report and was written, submitted, and entered into your OMPF in compliance with BUPERS Instruction 1610.10C. 

With regard to your contention that your CO materially erred when initiating the DFC request because he failed to state the specific reason for the request, prohibiting your meaningful challenge of the DFC, you assert that your CO failed to provide a detailed statement describing the facts and circumstances supporting the basis for the DFC request; did not explain the rationale for his disciplinary action, or lack thereof; did not adequately support all bases of the DFC; and did not adequately document your perceived deficiencies. The Board noted that your CO requested your DFC due to substandard performance of duty for an extended period of time, and that he gave a comprehensive explanation in his five-page request that included seven enclosures of supporting documentation that demonstrated your failure to meet the expectations of a squadron maintenance officer, which led to your CO’s complete loss of trust and confidence in your ability to serve in the position of maintenance officer.  The DFC was requested due to your inability to professionally execute your assigned duties in an acceptable manner, and you addressed the specific allegations in your 19 November 2014 response to the DFC request. The Board also noted that the request was reviewed and determined to be in compliance with policy and regulation, and subsequently approved by the Navy Personnel Command.  The Board concluded that contention that your CO materially erred when initiating the DFC is without merit. 

With regard to your contention that a prior panel’s decision (docket NR20170001258) violates MILPERSMAN 1611-020, the Board reviewed the material that was used to come to the conclusion that your DFC was justified, and determined that the Board’s prior decision was correct, although the explanation was lacking in sufficient detail.  This Board panel determined that your CO provided specific performance deficiencies when he requested your DFC, that he provided specific instances of how you did not satisfactorily correct your deficiencies after you were issued your LOI, and that the DFC request was submitted in compliance with policy and regulation.  The Board also determined that the DFC request was subsequently reviewed and approved by the Navy Personnel Command.  The Board also determined that, after you were afforded the opportunity to submit a statement in response to adverse material being inserted into your OMPF, the DFC documents were filed into your OMPF in accordance with MILPERSMAN 1070-170.  The Board thus concluded that removal of the DFC documents from your OMPF is not warranted. 

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 you

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,