Docket No: 8834-19 
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: 5610-17), you requested retroactive promotion to Commander (CDR/O-5) and Captain (CAPT/O-6).  You also requested all medals and awards that you should have received during the course of each tour of duty.  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 November 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 for retroactive promotion to CDR and CAPT and receipt of all medals and awards that you should have received during the course of each tour of duty.  The Board considered your contentions that religious discrimination was rampant in the Navy Chaplain Corps and although most of your officer fitness reports from 1986 forward appear to be outstanding, this did not ensure that your career achievements would be fairly considered by the promotion board.  As new evidence, you furnished letters submitted to the Chief, Navy Personnel Command (CNPC) and the Commander, ,  that were returned unopened, numerous fitness reports, and the 21 August 2002 article from the Washington Post regarding a class action suit by Navy Chaplains that served between 1988 to 2002.  
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the previous Board’s determination.  The Board noted your new evidence and determined that the new evidence you furnished is inconclusive and insufficient to substantiate that you were discriminated against because of your religion and/or age.  The Board also noted that considerable time has passed since your promotion selection board and thus determined that you do not meet the criteria to convene a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion consideration.  In this regard, SECNAV Instruction 1402.1 provides that convening of a SSB requires that the member exercise due diligence and all applications for SSBs must be received no later than three years after the date the contested board results were made public.  The Board found no evidence that your record was not properly briefed or that you were not properly considered for promotion to O-5 and you provided none.   
 
Concerning your request for awards and medals that you should have received, the Board substantially concurred with the previous Board’s determination that the Board is not the appropriate agency to adjudicate awards.  The Board determined that the Navy and Marine Corps Awards Manual provides guidance on awards.  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,