Docket No: 387-19 Ref: Signature date Dear This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request dated 28 March 2017. You previously petitioned the Board and were advised that your applications had been disapproved. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. Because your application was submitted with new assertions and a new request for relief that were not previously considered, the Board found it in the interest of justice to review your most recent application. In this regard, your current request has been carefully examined by a three-member panel of the Board on 17 June 2019. 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, together with all material submitted in support thereof, available portions of your naval record, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. You enlisted in the Navy and served honorably; you began a final period of active duty on 14 November 1988. In March 1994, you took an Advancement Exam for promotion to petty officer first class. You contend that when the results were published in June 1994, you should have been frocked to first class petty officer with advancement and pay to begin in December 1994. Due to errors and injustice, you were not advanced. In 1995, you submitted a petition to the Board for corrective action pertaining to your advancement to E-6. On 11 January 1996, you submitted a Special Request Chit to be extended at NAVSUBCOL for “maternal benefit” for your spouse. Your chain of command denied your extension request. On 17 January 1996, based on a Board grant letter for Docket No. the Chief of Navy Personnel (CNP) directed that you be advanced the grade of first class petty officer (E-6) effective 16 December 1994. At the time, you had orders to the and were pending expiration of your enlistment contract (EAOS) on 13 February 1996. Although CNP had directed corrective action with regard to your promotion, you stated that reenlisting was against your conscience because the Board had not made you whole with the resultant decision in . You contended that although your promotion was retroactively executed on paper, you should have been a first class petty officer with 18 months of service as opposed to being a new first class petty officer. You also stated that you did not wish to accept orders to because you knew you would not get enough sleep as a first class petty officer on a submarine. You reached your EAOS, and on 13 February 1996, you were discharged from the Navy with an honorable characterization and a reentry (RE) code of RE-1. You again petitioned the Board in 2014 and 2017, and your petitions were denied. In your current petition you seek back pay and compensation for advancement to E-6 beginning December 1994, promotion to E-7 and pay and allowances for 20 years of service, and retirement in the grade of E-7. You cite obstructive sleep apnea as well as injustice due to alleged incomplete action by the Board in You contend that Board failed to take corrective action before your discharge and that the retroactive advancement was unjust in that it did not make you “whole.” Your argument of injustice and error centers around the contention that the Board’s correction was incomplete and that you were not able to re-enlist or renew your contract with the U.S. Navy nor were you allowed to extend your enlistment “long enough to be compensated.” You indicated that you should have received back pay prior to your EAOS and assert that the “inequitable” relief awarded by the Board in 1996 placed you in the untenable position of having limited duty options available to you. You also claim that your lack of practical experience as a first class and less than positive attitude due to the Navy’s error left you unfit for duty. You state that after being informed of the Board’s decision you were given the ultimatum of a permanent change of station or to be honorably discharged. You contend that a reasonable person would not have reenlisted, and thereby you are entitled to corrective action. The Board carefully considered your request for reconsideration and noted your claims of error and injustice. With regard to your claim that the Board did not provide complete corrective action in by not providing back pay prior to your EAOS, the Board noted that the 1996 decision was provided to you prior to your EAOS and that any back pay that was due based on that decision would be issued by the Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS), not the Department of the Navy. The Board determined you were given appropriate relief in 1996, when CNP directed your advancement to E-6 and that you were given the option of reenlisting in the Navy prior to the expiration of your current service contract. Your Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) for the period of 14 November 1988 through 13 February 1996, reflects the paygrade of E-6 and a reentry (RE) code of RE-1. The Board found that you were given the option to continue your naval service in the grade of E-6 but you elected not to reenlist. The Board noted that your RE-1 did not hamper your ability to return to military service after your discharge. Even in consideration of your frustration with the lack of back pay prior to your EAOS and your contention that you did not have the experience of holding the rate and working as an E-6 from December 1994 through the 17 January 1996, the Board found that you were not treated erroneously or unjustly by the Navy when it took corrective action on your original application of The Board considered that your Special Request Chit from 11 January 1996 appears to have been made on the basis of maternal benefits for your spouse rather than on the basis of time in rate as an E-6. The Board also considered that your personal statements indicate that the demands of service onboard as a first class petty officer were among your considerations when you elected not to reenlist. The Board concluded that the Navy was not in error nor was it unjust when it discharged you on 13 February 1996, due to your election not to reenlist as a first class petty officer. The Board considered the timing of the original corrective action as directed by the Board, the apparent delay in your receipt of back pay from DFAS until after your EAOS, and your frustration with the situation in early 1996. Nonetheless, the Board found that you were properly discharged in the grade of first class petty officer on 13 February 1996, and that your application does not establish that your record contains an error or an injustice that merits a change in your record. 2 The Board noted that you provided Leave and Earnings Statements (LESs) from November 1995 through February 1996, but you did not provide any information about a receipt of back pay from DFAS after your EAOS. Your contention of error regarding receipt of back pay appears to be related to the fact that the back pay for the difference in pay grade from December 1994 was not dispersed by DFAS prior to your EAOS. 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 your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 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.