DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 1874-19 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 21 April 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 30 January 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), as well as your 3 January 2020 rebuttal. The Board carefully considered your request to remove your annual (AN) fitness report for the reporting period 23 September 2016 to 31 May 2017, your change of duty (CD) fitness report for the reporting period 1 June 2017 to 4 July 2017, your change of reporting senior (CH) fitness report for the reporting period 5 July 2017 to 28 November 2017, and your transfer (TR) fitness report for the reporting period 27 March 2018 to 1 June 2018. The Board considered your contentions that you were reprised against for being a whistleblower who, during the reporting periods, reported abuses of authority, unauthorized commitments, systematic issues, unethical treatment of civilian personnel, and multiple reprisals, and that the details of each complaint is outlined in your Mast cases to the Commander, Marine Corps Forces, Europe and Marine Corps Forces, Africa (MARFOREUR/AF). The Board also considered your contention that, after you applied for and were selected to teach at the United States Naval Academy (USNA), the Deputy Commander of MARFOREUR/AF, with the assistance of Headquarters, Marine Corps (MMOA), had your orders canceled. The Board noted that the Whistleblower Reprisal Investigation Directorate, Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General, completed an oversight review of your complaint and concurred with the Inspector General of the Marine Corps’ recommendation that your complaint did not meet the requirements for an investigation in accordance with Title 10, United States Code, Section 1034, “Protected communications; prohibitions of retaliatorypersonnel actions,” as implemented by Department of Defense Directive 7050.06, “Military Whistleblower Protection.” The Board also noted that, during the reporting period of your AN fitness report, on 17 October 2016, you were issued a non-punitive letter of caution for inadequate security of newly received equipment and failure to uphold your command’s expectations for responsibility, supervision, and time and resource management. The Board also note that your first Request Mast application was not submitted until after your AN and CD fitness reports were issued. With regard to your contention that your orders to the USNA were cancelled, purportedly as a form of reprisal, the Board noted that the panel to select officers for assignment to the USNA is a centralized process to identify and match volunteers to the requirements as understood at the time of the board. The Board determined that the decision to modify your orders, as noted in the MMOA Branch Head e-mail of 13 April 2018, “was not taken lightly, nor made capriciously,” and that the decision was made “with the inputs of the USNA, your command, and your record of performance as now informed,”and that the matter was not punitive, but involved changing requirements and best fit.” In view of the foregoing, the Board concluded that you failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to establish that your fitness reports are not an accurate portrayal of your performance and accomplishments during the reporting period, or that they were issued as a form of reprisal. The Board thus concluded that there is no probable material error or injustice warranting corrective action. 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,