DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S COURTHOUSE ROAD SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490  

Docket No: 7480-19 
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.      
 
In your previous petition to the Board (Docket No: 3086-18), you requested to remove your Court Memorandum documenting your 5 June 2006 non-judicial punishment (NJP) and to restore your pay grade, Petty Officer First Class (PO1/E-6) upon the 30th anniversary of your combined active duty service/fleet reserve status, 30 September 2018.  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 October 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 carefully considered your request to remove your Court Memorandum documenting your 5 June 2006 non-judicial punishment (NJP) and to restore of your pay grade E-6.  The Board considered your new contentions that since the previous Board recognized the transfer of jurisdiction to  , your Article 15 was not administered in accordance with the Manual of the Judge Advocate General (JAGMAN).  You also contend that you were not fully informed of your right to appeal your NJP and there are no documents in your record preserving your legal rights before imposition of your NJP or your right to appeal your punishment. 
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the previous Board’s determination that your commanding officer’s finding of guilt during your NJP was just and within his discretionary authority pursuant to Article 15, the Manual for Courts-Marital (2016 ed.).  The Board noted your record of unauthorized absence, history of assignments and determined that sufficient documentation exist in your record to support the basis for your NJP and awarded punishment.  The Board also noted that your evaluation report for the reporting period 13 May 2006 to 4 June 2006 documented your NJP, you acknowledged the content and basis for your report, and you elected not to submit a statement for the record.  The Board thus determined that your failure to submit a statement indicates that you understood and accepted the basis for your report.  Moreover, the Board relies on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of public officers and, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, will presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.  The Board thus determined 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. 
 
Sincerely,