Docket No: 2128-18 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. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 August 2019. 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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Following a Preliminary Inquiry report of 3 March 2017, you purportedly received an Administrative Remarks (Page 11) 6105 counseling on 7 March 2017 due to verbally abusing recruits in Platoon . The 7 March 2017 counseling is not in your official military personnel file (OMPF), but its issuance is referenced by the commanding officer’s (CO), Recruit Training Battalion letter of 12 April 2017. Consequently, on 9 March 2017 you were transferred from Platoon to Platoon . On 16 March 2017, the CO, directed a command investigation (CI) into new allegations of verbal abuse that occurred within Platoon . Based on the findings documented in the 7 April 2017 CI report, that included statements from four fellow and and five telephonic your Battalion CO found you in clear violation of the and that you attempted to conceal your behavior by conducting yourself improperly when not under the immediate supervision of another Your CO determined that you failed to remediate yourself despite multiple verbal warnings from your immediate chain of command, and after receiving a 6105 counseling on 7 March 2017. On 8 April 2017, you received another 6105 counseling for knowingly violating the You were advised of your deficiencies, provided with recommended corrective action, advised of available assistance, and warned of the possible consequences of failure to take corrective action. You acknowledged the counseling and you were given five working days to submit a written rebuttal, but chose not to make such a statement. On 18 April 2017, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 92 (failure to obey order or regulation), for verbally abusing recruits and failure to refrain from the use of profane language, and Article 93 (maltreatment of recruits). Prior to office hours, you were advised of your Article 31, UCMJ rights and your right to demand trial by court-martial in lieu of NJP. You did not demand trial by court-martial and accepted NJP subject to your right of appeal. You did not appeal the NJP. You acknowledged that you were given the opportunity to consult with a military lawyer, provided at no expense to you prior to your decision to accept NJP, and you declined to exercise that right. The Board carefully considered your request to remove your 18 April 2017 NJP. The Board considered your contentions that you were coerced into accepting NJP, and that you accepted NJP because your first sergeant said the command was trying to “take care of you” and not punish you more severely. You assert that you were threatened with a court-martial if you did not accept NJP, and that you were told that if you accepted the NJP, you would still have time to recover from the situation in order to continue your career. The Board also considered your contention that you did not verbally abuse recruits, that the recruits banded together with their stories against you, and that there was some collusion among the other drill instructors. The Board determined that you have not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that your acceptance of NJP was coerced. In this regard, after notification of the offenses alleged and the opportunity to consult with defense counsel, which you declined, you accepted NJP and pleaded guilty to the offenses alleged. In the circumstances, you knowingly and voluntarily elected NJP. That you did so to avoid the potential consequences of a court-martial does not render such acceptance involuntary or coerced. Furthermore, by accepting NJP, you forfeited your opportunity to challenge the findings of the CI and the statements of the recruits and your fellow drill instructors in a judicial forum. Finally, you did not appeal the NJP or refute the allegations of abuse when you were issued the 8 April 2017 counseling. 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 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 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.