Docket No: 5114-19 
Ref: Signature Date 

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.  The Board also considered the enclosed 10 September 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Officer Accession and Promotions Branch (PERS-806) and your response. 

The Board carefully considered your request to change your date for rank to the grade O-3 to 1 February 2015 instead of 1 February 2016.  The Board considered your contention that by crediting you with two and one-half (2 ½) years of time in grade credit as of your re-designation date, your record should reflect 1 February 2015 as your date of rank as a lieutenant.  You claim that the previous Board acknowledged your 15 years of prior commissioned service and determined that the Navy Reserve Judge Advocate General Corps (JAGC) program allowed for time-in grade credit, but not a promotion. 

The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO that NAVADMIN 110/17, the Navy Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Procedures for Navy Reserve Officers Requesting a Change of Designator to Reserve JAGC does not allow for an officer to be awarded an additional 2 ½  years of time-in-grade.  In this regard, the Board noted your reliance on paragraph 3 of NAVADMIN 110/17--specifically, “[o]fficers chosen for re-designation to the Reserve JAGC will be credited with 1 day of service credit for each day of prior service as a commissioned officer, performed as a regular or reserve officer in an active status in any uniformed service up to a maximum entry grade of LCDR with 2 and 1-half years, time-in-grade.”  The Board determined that your interpretation of paragraph 3 is misguided.  The AO explained that paragraph 3 is administrative in nature and sets the limit on the entry grade/time-in-grade combination, allowing a service member in the grade O-4 with no more than 2 ½  years, time-in-grade to enter the program.  The Board also determined that the 3 May 2019 Board decision letter sentence, “Although the words “credited” and “credit” were used in NAVADMIN 110/17, they were used in the context of determining the proper date of rank within grade. . .,” was not composed to infer that you are entitled to an adjusted date of rank.  The Board further determined that entry into the JAGC program does not allow for promotion or time-in grade adjustments.  The Board thus concluded that there is no probable material error 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.