Docket No: 9588-19 
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 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, as well as the 4 February 2019 and 13 November 2019 advisory opinions (AOs) furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-32) and your response.   
 
The Board carefully considered your request to remove your fitness reports for the reporting period 1 December 2017 to 30 April 2018 and 1 May 2018 to 30 November 2018.  The Board considered your contentions that based upon your accomplishments as executive officer and interim commanding officer, your fitness reports are inaccurate, unjust, and lack rational support. You also contend that your reporting senior (RS) abused her discretionary authority, acted improperly, and demonstrated unwarranted bias and prejudice against you.  You claim that during the reporting periods, you were subjected to a toxic and hostile work environment, which included retaliatory behaviors.  You also claim that you provided your RS with a list of your accomplishments that she did not included in your fitness reports, nor were you provided with the rational for not including your accomplishments, and your fitness reports were designed to ensure that you would never get promoted again.  You argue that your fitness reports were reprisal because of your Inspector General (IG) complaint alleging abuse of authority, retaliation and reprisal and for your Request Mast that highlighted unethical behavior by your chain of command. 
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AOs that your fitness reports are valid and should be retained as filed.  In this regard, the Board found no evidence that your RS demonstrated bias, prejudice or abused her discretionary authority in the preparation of your fitness reports.  The Board also found no evidence of retaliation, reprisal or that a toxic and hostile work environment existed and you provided none.  The Board noted your statement, however, the Board found it insufficient to conclude that your performance and conduct rated higher marks than you received.  The Board determined that your RS acted in accordance with the Navy Evaluation Manual and provided sufficient comments to justify your trait grades and promotion recommendations.  The Board thus concluded that there is no probable material error or injustice warranting corrective action.  
 
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 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,