Dear , 
 
This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request dated 26 November 2018.  You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been disapproved.  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 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.     
 
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 November 2019.  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.  In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion contained in Navy Personnel Command (NPC) letter 5730 Ser 91/148 of 17 June 2019 and your response to the opinion. 
 
On 7 May 1983, you were commissioned in the U.S. Navy.  On 30 June 1992, you resigned your commission.  On 21 November 1992, your ready reserve transfer request service agreement was approved.  On 1 April 1994, you were advanced to Lieutenant Commander.  Effective 1 November 1996, your records were transferred to NAVRESPERSCEN, .  Furthermore, you were directed to keep the Commanding Officer, informed of any changes of address or status effecting eligibility for service in the Naval Reserve.  On 21 January 1999, you were discharged from the U.S. Naval Reserve.  On 3 August 2009, you were appointed as a Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Naval Reserve.  On 3 May 2013, you were notified of your status in the Navy Reserve.  A review of your record revealed that you had failed of selection for promotion at least twice and would complete 20 years of commissioned service in April 2014.  Furthermore, unless you were approved for continuation, your separation would be required on 1 May 2014.  On 1May 2014, you were discharged with 17 years of qualifying service.           
    
You requested 1) that you resigned your Naval Reserve commission on 31 October 1996 and discharged on that date; 2) that you did not accrue commissioned service from 1 November 1996 until 21 January 1999; 3) that you were not discharged on 1 May 2014 due to failure of selection/20 years of commissioned service; 4) that you performed a “good year” of service (67 points creditable for retirement) from August 2013 to August 2014; and 5) that you reached Reserve sanctuary (18 years) on or about 3 August 2014.  The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, to include your assertions.  The Board agreed that something triggered the 29 October 1996 inactive duty training orders termination/cancellation/modification form. However, the Board concluded that there is no evidence that your resignation request dated 15 May 1996 was the reason that the form was issued. The Board noted that you claim you did not know of that form or of your transfer to the IRR, but also noted that you did not appear to have inquired about your status after sending your resignation request and that had you done so, that information would have come to your attention much sooner.  Furthermore, there is no evidence that the 8 February 1999 letter from the Commanding Officer, Naval Reserve Personnel Center accepting your voluntary request to resign was in response to the resignation request dated 15 May 1996. Regarding the 3 May 2013 letter, the Board concluded that it was your responsibility to ensure that your contact information was correct.  It is possible that the timing of your move may have precluded delivery; however, the letter was never returned undelivered and you had until 31 October 2013 to reply.  Finally, while there was a possibility you might have been selected for continuation, it was not guaranteed.  In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. 
 
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 issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
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.