DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 1309-19 Ref: Signature Date This letter 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. 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 3 March 2020. 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. The Board also considered the enclosed 22 April 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Office of Legal Counsel (PERS-00J), as well as your 13 August 2019 rebuttal. The Board carefully considered your request to remove the 26 September 2018 “return to service” letter from all Department of Defense personnel and detailer files, and, specifically, to remove detailer notes regarding your suitability for assignment. The Board considered your contention that there was no valid reason given for your return to service, and that its significant negative career implications will preclude future assignment to joint and inter-agency positions. You also assert that the letter states that no misconduct occurred, but only unsuitability for the Attaché billet in one specific location in . You argue that “return to service,” per CJCS Instruction 1330.05A, refers to suspension from duty, which is meant to be due to adverse circumstances, and that no such circumstances were documented in your case. The Board noted that, on 26 September 2018, ordered your “return to service.” The Navy ordered you back from a Joint Command due to a loss of confidence by the Ambassador in your ability to perform the duties as the Senior and contribute to the mission in the U.S. Defense . Your return to service was not due to misconduct but, instead, your unsuitability for the role as a . The Board also noted that the contested letter was not filed in your official military personnel file (OMPF), although your detaching fitness report for the reporting period 1 August 2018 to 15 October 2015 references your return to service in the Block 41 lead sentence as “Fitness Report submitted upon Service member’s transfer to OPNAV.” The Board also noted that the letter is not kept in detailer records. The event of your return to service and suitability for future assignments of similar nature are mentioned in detailer’s informal notes on the Officer Assignment Information System (OAIS) for the purposes of informing detailers for appropriate assignment, but detailer notes are not part of an officer’s official record. The Board substantially concurred with the AO and determined that you did not present a basis for relief. The AO noted that your interpretation of CJCS Instruction 1330.05A was that you should not have been returned to service because there was no misconduct and that the intent of the instruction is “meant to be due to adverse circumstances,” but “no such circumstances were documented in [your] case.” The AO, however, determined that your suspension itself is the adverse action, and that misconduct is not a requirement for suspension in the instruction. The AO further noted that the basis for your suspension from duty was the loss of confidence in your ability to perform your duties as the Senior as well as your unsuitability to serve in the role as a In your rebuttal to the AO, you argue that there remains significant omissions of fact regarding the basis for why the Ambassador found you unsuitable for , and that the situation presents an injustice in that the reasoning has not been subject to scrutiny, remains unknown to yourself, and claims of professional unsuitability for duties of do not match your performance in that role. The Board noted that you did not present evidence to support your contention that your were not unsuitable for the role, and that the Board is not an investigative body. The function of the Board 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. The Board thus concluded that, because the contested letter is not in your OMPF, and, more pertinently, you presented no evidence to support your contention, there is no probable material error or injustice warranting corrective action by this Board. 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, 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 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, 4/20/2020