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

Docket No: 1419-19 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear

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 12 April 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Navy Pay and Personnel Support Center, as well as your 30 July 2019 rebuttal. 

The Board carefully considered your request restore your retired officer grade designation in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) from chief warrant officer-4 (CWO4) to lieutenant/O3E (LT/O3E), as documented on your DD Form 214. The Board considered your contentions that your grade of CWO4 is incorrectly listed in DEERS, which is fed from the Navy Standard Integrated Personnel System (NSIPS) and other Navy systems, and that your grade should be listed as LT/O3E. You assert that it is not about money, but it is about principle and recognition of the highest rank honorably held.  You also argue that your change in designation from LT to CWO4 was not due to any punitive actions but the sudden severe reduction of available engineering billets for your officer designator due to a mandated force drawdown. 

The AO noted that you were reverted from O3E limited duty officer to CWO4 to allow you the opportunity to complete your service and retire. Your grade designation on your DD Form 214, Block 1 is “CWO4,” but, as specified in Block “18” of your DD Form 214, on transfer to the retire list, this designation was to be changed to lieutenant O3 (the highest grade honorably held).
 
The AO, however, determined that, pursuant to the MILPERSMAN 1800-040, if an officer previously served satisfactorily, as determined by the Secretary, in a higher grade, under temporary appointment, the officer will be advanced to that grade on the Retired List under authority contained in Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 6151 “providing such advancement will not result in less retired pay.” (Emphasis added.) Although you assert that it is not about your retired pay, but about the principle and recognition of the highest rank honorably held, the Board substantially concurred with the AO and concluded that your grade shall remain CWO4 as to not result in less retired pay.
 
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,