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

Docket No: 1957-19
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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied.
    
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 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, as well as the enclosed 11 April 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-32) and your response.
  
The Board carefully considered your request to remove your fitness report for the reporting period 16 November 2017 to 27 June 2018. The Board considered your contentions that your reporting senior (RS) submitted a Special evaluation in lieu of non-judicial punishment (NJP) and before the investigation was complete.  You also contend that your administrative separation board unanimously found no basis for the allegation of fraternization.
   
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO that your contested fitness report is valid.  In this regard, the AO explained that, in accordance with BUPERSINST 1610.10D, the Navy Evaluation Manual (EVALMAN), an RS is allowed to submit a Special evaluation if needed to withdraw an advancement recommendation.  Additionally, a Special evaluation may be submitted if the RS believes that facts should be placed on the record before the next reporting occasion.  The Board noted block 43 of the contested report, in which your RS noted that you were relieved as a recruiter due to a loss of confidence in your ability to lead at the level expected of a first-class chief petty officer, and he withdrew his advancement recommendation.  

Concerning your contention that the report was submitted in lieu of NJP, the Board noted that an RS is permitted comment on misconduct when the facts are clearly established to his satisfaction. Further, the Board found no evidence that your RS submitted the report in lieu of NJP, and the Board determined that your RS was not required to impose NJP or await the completion of an investigation to submit your Special evaluation withdrawing your promotion recommendation.  
Concerning your contention that your administrative discharge board found no basis for the allegation of fraternization, the Board noted that the administrative discharge board did find that the preponderance of evidence supported one of the allegations of misconduct yet voted to recommend your retention in the Navy.  The Board determined that the administrative separation board’s recommendation had no bearing on your RS’s authority to submit a Special evaluation.  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,