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.    
Your request has been carefully examined by a three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session on 8 September 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 the matters submitted in support of your application.  The Board also considered the 9 August 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-32) and the AO furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-80), as well as your rebuttal.   
 
The Board carefully considered your request to remove your detachment of individual/ concurrent fitness report for the reporting period 22 August 2014 to 10 March 2015, and replace it with a “not observed” detachment of individual fitness report to be issued by Commander …...  The Board also considered your request to be granted the convening of a Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Active Duty Lieutenant Commander Staff Corps Special Selection Board (SSB), and to remove any failures of selection. 
 
The Board considered your contention that PERS-32 accepted the contested fitness report without the required countersignature of your reporting senior, Commander …….  However, due to the purported presence of inconsistencies and other errors, Commander …… declined to countersign the concurrent fitness report.  You contend that, without the reporting senior’s signature, the subject fitness report would be considered invalid and should be removed from your OMPF.   
 
You noted that, one of the criteria for granting a SSB is a material error of fact or material administrative error in an officer’s record, which more likely than not deprived the officer of fair and impartial consideration.  You assert that, due to the complexities and significant changes in your record, it is challenging for the regular promotion selection board to adequately evaluate your performance in light of the injustices, and despite your subsequent superior performance as documented by your last six “EP” exemplary fitness reports, failure to promote three times further demonstrates that you have not been fairly evaluated.    
 
Regarding your contention of the required countersignature of your reporting senior on the contested fitness report, the Board noted that, pursuant to BUPERS Instruction 1610.10C, the countersignature verifies that the report has been properly submitted, but does not necessarily imply agreement with the contents (emphasis added).  Therefore, the Board concluded that the absence of your reporting senior’s signature on the contested report is merely an administrative error, and not material, and PERS-32’s acceptance of the report is evidence of this.  Moreover, the Board substantially concurred with the AOs and determined that your remaining requests are without merit.  Specifically, there is no material error in your record, and you have not met the criteria for the granting of a SSB.  The Board thus concluded that the record does not constitute 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. 
 
Sincerely,