DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 11133-18 Ref: Signature Date From: Chainnan, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) MCO 6110.3 w/Ch 1 (c) MCO 6110.3A Encl: (1) DD Fonn 149 (2) Administrative Remarks (Page 11) counseling of22 Mar 12 (3) Administrative Remarks (Page 11) counseling of 4 Apr 12 1. Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted Marine, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that his record be corrected by removing the administrative remarks ("Page 11" or "6105 administrative counseling") entries at enclosures (2) and (3), and his rebuttal at enclosure (2). on the available evidence of record. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 6 August 2019 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows: a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulation within the Department of the Navy. b.On 22 March 2012, Petitioner was issued enclosure (2), a Page 11 counseling for failing to meet Marine Corps height and weight standards. Petitioner's height was documented as 69 inches tall, his weight as 215 pounds, and his body fat (BF) as 20%. Petitioner indicated that he intended to submit a written statement, but there is no rebuttal in his official military personnel file (OMPF). Per reference (b), the Marine Corps Body Composition and Military Appearance Program in effect at that time, the Marine Corps height/weight/body composition standards for Petitioner's age group, 27 to 39 and 69 inches tall, was 186 pounds (maximum weight), and 19% maximum BF. Petitioner was issued enclosure (3) on 4 April 2012, stating that, during the process of being evaluated for placement on the Marine Corps Body Composition Program and Military Appearance Program (BCP), Petitioner "returned to proper height and weight standards" c.On 26 May 2017, Petitioner was issued enclosure (4), a Page 11 counseling for again failing to meet Marine Corps height and weight standards. Petitioner's height was documented as 69 inches tall, his weight as 213 pounds, and his BF as 20%. Petitioner indicated that he did not intend to submit a written statement. Per reference ( c ), the BCP in effect at that time, the Marine Corps height/weight/body composition standards for Petitioner's age group, 36 to 40 and 69 inches tall, was 186 pounds (maximum weight) and 20% maximum BF. d.Per enclosures (5) and (6), Petitioner's commanding officer (CO) and sergeant major claimed that administrative procedures were not followed correctly, and recommended that the 26 May 2017 counseling be removed from Petitioner's OMPF. The letters state that Petitioner was initially determined to be outside of Marine Corps standards, but returned to standards within the assignment processing period, and ultimately was never assigned to the BCP. Additionally, Petitioner's BF percentage tolerance was raised from 19% to 20% upon his turning 36 years old during this same period. e. Pursuant to references (b) and (c), a Page 11 ( 6105) counseling entry will be made when a Marine is counseled on deficiencies, corrective action to be taken, and assignment to the BCP. MAJORITY CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the majority finds the existence of an injustice warranting partial relief. In this regard, the majority determined that Petitioner was still not within Marine Corps standards when the counseling at enclosure (4) was issued, even though his age group put him at 20% maximum BF. However, the majority, in light of enclosures (5) and (6), determined that Petitioner was not assigned to the BCP and Petitioner's command did not intend for the counseling to be entered into his OMPF. The majority concluded that the counseling at enclosure (4) shall be removed from Petitioner's OMPF. The majority was not willing to remove the counseling entries at enclosures (2) or (3). In this regard, the majority noted that, pursuant to reference (b ), a counseling entry will be made when a Marine is counseled on deficiencies, corrective action to be taken, and assignmentto the BCP. Although Petitioner was not assigned to the BCP, he did not furnish an advocacy letter from the issuing officer recommending that the counseling be removed. Moreover, even though Petitioner was not assigned to the BCP, his CO was within his authority to issue the counseling to document Petitioner's failure to maintain Marine Corps standards. The majority concluded that the counseling entries at enclosures (2) and (3) shall remain in Petitioner's OMPF. MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the majority directs the following corrective action. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing from his OMPF the 26 May 2017 counseling entry at enclosure (4). That no further relief be granted. MINORITY CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the minority member determined that the 22 March 2012 and 26 May 2017 counselings are not in error or unjust. Despite the advocacy letters at enclosures (5) and (6), recommending that the 26 May 2017 counseling be removed because Petitioner ultimately was never assigned to the BCP, the minority determined that both counselings properly documented Petitioner's deficiency in his failure to maintain Marine Corps height and weight standards. The minority concluded that removal of the 6105 counseling entries at enclosures (2) through (4) is not warranted. MINORITY RECOMMENDATION That no relief be granted. 4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action.