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

Docket No: 3920-19 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear  : 

This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request.  You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised in our decision letter that your application was disapproved.  Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004).  After careful and conscientious consideration of your new matters, the Board found the evidence was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has again been denied. 

Your application has been carefully examined by a three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session on 28 April 2020. 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 and any material submitted in support of your application.  The Board also considered the enclosed 24 April 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-32), which was previously provided to you.  Although you were afforded an opportunity to submit a rebuttal, you did not do so. 

Your new matters consisted of your contentions that your  evaluation for the reporting period 15 September 2017 to 15 September 2018 was determined to be unjust by your current court-martial authority (RDML D), as noted in her 22 February 20l9 letter to change blocks 35 (professionalism) and 37 (character) from 1.0 (below standards) to 3.0 (meets standards), block 41 redacted to remove the only negative sentence in the evaluation, and block 42 (promotion recommendation) changed from progressing to promotable.  You argue that this supplemental information is attached to the evaluation, but your electronic service record will not be updated, which affects overseas assignments and your promotion board for the next five to ten years.  You assert that, unless it is removed, it will continue to negatively affect your career by limiting overseas assignments, advancement, awarding, etcetera.  You also assert that allowing the evaluation to remain in your record would go against the command investigation findings.
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO that RDML D did not recommend removal of the evaluation, rather she submitted a letter that made supplemental changes to blocks 35, 37, 41 and 42 of the original report, and that letter was placed in your official military personnel file (OMPF) pursuant to BUPERSINST 1610.10D on 25 February 2019. The AO determined that “supplemental material does not replace the original report on the member’s OMPF nor does it change the information on the member’sPSR (performance summary record); it only supplements the original report.” Additionally “they are not entered into the automated file and performance summary record, but instead, a notation will appear to indicate that supplementary material has been placed in the image file.”  The Board thus concluded that you failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to establish an inaccuracy or injustice warranting corrective action. 

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. 

Sincerely,