DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 4850-19 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 that your application had been denied. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with 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 relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board found 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 2 June 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 23 April 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB). The AO was provided to you on 23 April 2019, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response. When you did not provide a response, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration. The Board carefully considered your request to remove your fitness reports for the reporting periods 1 January 2014 to 24 October 2014 and 25 October 2014 to 23 February 2015. The Board considered your contention that the officer that imposed your 22 October 2014 non­judicial punishment (NJP) provided a request to set aside your NJP. The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO that your fitness reports are valid and should be retained as modified. In this regard, the Board noted that the previous Board did not authorize the removal of your NJP. The Board reviewed and concurred with the 10 April 2018, Headquarters Marine Corps (JPL) AO’s determination that the officer who imposed your NJP was no longer your commanding officer (CO) when he purported to set aside your NJP, and as your former CO, he lacked the authority to set aside your NJP. The Board determined that your former CO’s request to set aside your NJP is not authorized pursuant to the Manual for Courts-Martial (2012 ed.), thus your NJP has not been set aside and will remain a matter of record in your official military personnel file (OMPF). Concerning your 1 April 2014 to 24 October 2014 fitness report, the Board concurred with the PERB that it be retained as filed. Concerning your 25 October 2014 to 23 February 2015 fitness report, the Board noted that the PERB corrected your record by removing your Section I, Directed Comment: “SNM was home waiting orders from 25 Oct 14 – 23 Feb 15 due to being processed for arelief from recruiting duty package.” TheBoard determined that the PERB correction to your fitness report is sufficient relief. The Board thus concluded that there is no probable material error or injustice warranting further 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,