Dear ,  
 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code.  After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted 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  11 March 2021.  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.   
 
A review of your record shows that you entered service with the Marine Corps in July 2005.  On 30 January 2016, while assigned as a Canvassing Recruiter, you interviewed Ms.  as a potential recruit.  The interview was entered into the Marine Corps Recruiting Information Support System.  According to Ms. , she decided to get a disqualifying tattoo in the beginning of February and informed you of the tattoo.  She asserts that you did not contact her for approximately one year after you informed him of your disinterest in the Marine Corps.  However, Ms.  accompanied you to the Marine Corps Ball on 19 November 2016.  As a result, you were counseled for violating MCRC Frost Call 012-15 and District Policy Letter 16-1 for engaging in a prohibited relationship with a “prospect” and “poolee.”  Your misconduct was also documented in your fitness report ending on 14 June 2017. 
 
The Board carefully considered your arguments that your counseling from 8 March 2017 along with the adverse mark from your 14 June 2017 fitness report should be removed.  You assert that you were not prohibited from engaging in a personal relationship with Ms.  since she possessed a disqualifying neck tattoo as of February 2016.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. 
 
DODI 1304.33 defines a “prospect” as any individual who expresses as interest in enlisting in the military.  That individual continues to be a “prospect” for 12 months even if they later change their interest in enlisting in the military.  However, the DODI provides an exception to the rule if that individual is permanently barred from enlisting at the time they express an interest in enlisting.  MCRC Frost Call 012-15 similarly defines “prospect” as DODI 1304.33 and prohibits recruiters from engaging in a personal relationship with a “prospect.”  8th Marine Corps District Policy Letter 1-16 identifies individuals defines as “prospects” as a “poolee” and similarly prohibits recruiters from engaging in personal relationships with those individuals.   
 
In reviewing the facts of your case, the Board concluded Ms.  met the definition of “prospect” and “poolee” since she was not permanently disqualified for enlistment in the Marine Corps on 30 January 2016, the date you interviewed her as a potential recruit.  The fact she later obtained a disqualifying tattoo did not change her status as a “prospect” or “poolee” since she was not permanently barred from enlisting at the time of her interview.  Therefore, despite the fact Ms.  later changed her mind and became ineligible for enlistment due to a tattoo, you were prohibited from engaging in a personal relationship with her for 12 months from 30 January 2016.  Since there was evidence that she accompanied you to the Marine Corps Ball in November 2016, the Board determined you engaged in a personal relationship with Ms.  within 12 months of her becoming a “prospect” and “poolee.”  Since your relationship with Ms.  was prohibited by MCRC Frost Call 012-15 and 8th Marine Corps District Policy Letter 1-16, the Board concluded the preponderance of the evidence supports your command’s decision to issue you the counseling statement and adverse fitness report regarding your conduct.  Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your record.   
 
The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would 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. 
 
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,