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.    
 
Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your case on its merits.  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 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.   
Additionally, The Board also considered the 6 April 2020 Advisory Opinion (AO) furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, along with your rebuttal.    
 
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. 
 
The Board carefully considered your request to remove your 18 November 2014 nonjudicial punishment (NJP), and to restore your rank and pay.  You also requested removal of your 3 December 2014 Administrative Remarks (Page 11) 6105 counseling entry.  The Board considered your contentions that due process was not followed by the investigating officer or commanding officer who oversaw the NJP.  Specifically, you assert that the NJP process was illegal, your Command did not allow you to see the investigation, and the investigating officer had previously known the accusing party.  You also claim that you were discriminated against by the Battalion, which ruined your honorable reputation in Marine Special Operations Command and that the Command would not allow you to promote. 
  
The Board noted that NJP is an administrative tool used to address misconduct and uses the preponderance of the evidence standard for disposition of cases.  Except in limited circumstances, NJP may not be imposed on a Marine unless the Marine accepts the NJP and does not demand a trial by court-martial.   
 
A review of your record shows that you received NJP on 18 November 2014.  The unit punishment book (UPB) documents your NJP for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 92 (failure to obey order or regulation) and Article 93 (maltreatment).  You acknowledged in your UPB entry that you were able to consult with an attorney prior to accepting NJP, and that you understood you had the right to refuse NJP.  However, you chose to plead guilty at your NJP hearing.  You also acknowledged you had the right to appeal the NJP, which you did not exercise, and that you had the right to submit a written rebuttal, which you chose not to do.   
 
The Board substantially concurred with the AO in that you provided scant evidence that there was any error or injustice with regard to the investigation that led to your NJP.  The Board also noted that there is no evidence that you requested, and were denied, access to the investigation.  The Board determined that your contention of a flawed and improper investigation is merely conjecture and immaterial because it does not allege an error or injustice in your record to be corrected or removed.   
 
Regarding your 3 December 2014 Page 11 6105 counseling, the Board noted that the issuing officer was within his discretionary authority to issue the counseling.  The Board determined that the entry met the 6105 counseling requirements detailed in MCO 1900.16 (MARCORSEPMAN).  Specifically, the Board noted that the entry provided written notification concerning your deficiencies, specific recommendations for corrective action indicating any assistance available, a comprehensive explanation of the consequences of failure to successfully take the recommended corrective action, and a reasonable opportunity to undertake the recommended corrective action.  You were afforded the opportunity to rebut the counseling, and chose not to.  Lastly, the Board noted that, due to your NJP, the promotion-restriction period was not in error.  The Board thus concluded that the Page 11 entry does not constitute probable material error or injustice warranting removal from your Official Military Personnel File. 
 
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,