DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 11157-18 Ref: Signature Date 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 February 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 noted that you were issued an Administrative Remarks (Page 11) 6105 entry counseling you for failing to follow the orders and regulations of the MCO 5354.1E Prohibited Activities and Conduct Prevention and Response Policy by making a racial slur on 18 July 2018 towards your company’s lead corpsman. You acknowledged the entry and chose to submit a rebuttal. The rebuttal, however, is not in your official military personnel file (OMPF). You were also issued an adverse fitness report for the reporting period 1 June 2018 to 30 July 2018 for being relieved and due to a loss of trust and confidence in you as a result of a substantiated equal opportunity (EO) complaint. In your rebuttal to the fitness report, you also stated that your relief was due to a substantiated EO complaint, but that it was resolved through the informal resolution method and the matter was settled. You also stated that you did not believe the incident would have continued to negatively affect the work environment. Your third officer sighter (3OS) determined that the adversity of the report was justified and appropriate, and that your commander lawfully disposed of your misconduct through a 6105 entry. Your 3OS also determined that, although the incident was resolved through the informal resolution system, “the fact remains that harassment by [you] was substantiated by a thorough investigation.” The Board carefully considered your request to remove your 6 August 2018 Administrative Remarks (Page 11) 6105 counseling entry from your OMPF. You assert that that your CO determined that the EO complaint was “dismissed as moot” and that “no further administrative action be taken.” The Board considered your contention that your counseling was issued by another officer after your CO’s dismissal of the EO complaint, and after you had transferred to another company. You argue that, pursuant to MCO 5354.1E, “dismissal or referral does not mean the individual’s issue will not get addressed or resolved, but rather it will not be processed under the requirements of this order.” You therefore contend that you should not have received a Page 11 6105 entry or any other administrative action in relation to the EO complaint, other than a discrimination and sexual harassment (DASH) file. The Board, however, determined that your contentions are without merit. In this regard, the Board noted in the same paragraph of MCO 5354.1E that you refer to, it states that “[i]rrespective of whether a complaint is accepted, dismissed, or referred under this Order, commanders have the authority to employ the full range of administrative and disciplinary actions, including administrative separation or appropriate criminal action, against military personnel who engage in activity prohibited by this Order.” The Board noted that there is no evidence in the record, and you submitted none, that your former CO determined “that no further administrative action be taken,” and, even if he had, the Board determined that the CO who relieved you of your duties and issued the counseling was within her discretionary authority to do so. Accordingly, the Board concluded that the contested Page 11 entry does not constitute 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, 4/8/2020