Docket No. 5148-19
Ref: Signature Date


Dear  : 
 
This letter is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.  After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied. 
 
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 issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
 
The Board carefully considered your request to adjust your date-of-rank (DOR) in the grade of staff sergeant and award all associated back pay and allowances.  You assert that 1 January 2018 would have been your DOR, had you been selected for promotion with your peers on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Staff Sergeant Promotion Selection Board.  The Board considered your contention that you were not considered by the FY 2017 Board due to an erroneous reduction in grade that was later corrected by the Board (Docket NR20170004471). 
 
You assert that, subsequent to the Board’s correction of your erroneous reduction in grade, you were considered for promotion by an FY 2017 Enlisted Remedial Selection Board (ERSB), but due to the erroneous reduction in your record, you were missing 15 months of observed fitness reports.  You contend that the lack of observed fitness reports negatively impacted the ERSB and contributed to your failure to select. 
 
You also assert that Headquarters Marine Corps (MMPR-2) confirmed that your Professional Military Education (PME) requirement was waived.  You contend, however, that you failed to select because your Remedial Summary Sheet, which was available for consideration by the ERSB, was marked “no” for PME and “yes” for waiver, with the note “resident course not taken.” 
 
The Board noted that the FY 2017 ERSB members were guided by the precept used during the regularly convened selection board for which your remedial consideration was granted.  The ERSB members considered a sampling of records in your competitive category/intended military occupational specialty who were recommended for promotion and who were not recommended for promotion by the regularly scheduled promotion selection board.  The Board determined that,   in the opinion of the majority of the ERSB members, you were not better qualified for promotion than the Marines who failed selection by the regularly scheduled promotion selection board, or equally or better qualified for promotion than the Marines who were selected by the regularly scheduled promotion selection board. 
 
Additionally, the Board noted that you did not identify any error regarding materials provided to the FY 2017 ERSB when considering your suitability for promotion.  In fact, the Remedial Summary Sheet correctly notified the ERSB members that you were granted a waiver for the PME requirement to attend the Resident Sergeants Course.  The Board concluded that your contentions lack merit, and your purported reasons for non-selection by the FY 2017 ERSB are merely speculative. 
 
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case 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 this regard, 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, 

9/7/2020


Executive Director