Docket No: 2222-20 
Ref: Signature Date 

 
 
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 30 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.    
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will 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 reevaluate your relief for cause, for an opportunity to complete the necessary active duty for full retirement, and payment of back pay and allowances.  The Board considered your contention that retributive action resulted in the termination of your active duty special work (ADSW) orders, which would have carried you to full active duty retirement.  You also contend that an unjust Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) Incident History entry was retributive, and the termination of your orders without due process such as a Board of Inquiry (BOI) was clearly wrong.  You claim that you had seventeen years and four months of active duty service at the time of your relief and your relief and termination of active duty orders was grossly disproportionate to the magnitude of the error asserted to justify the punishment.  You also claim that the termination of your security clearance was done to inhibit your ability to pursue follow-on employment opportunities in the civilian sector and had you not been relieved, you would have received an active duty retirement.      
 
The Board reviewed the evidence you furnished and considered the circumstances that led to your relief as the Marine Corps Liaison to the Department of Defense (DoD) Severely Injured Center, however, the Board determined that your relief for cause and the termination of your ADSW orders were valid.  In this regard, the Board noted that you received an adverse fitness report for the reporting period 2 November 2005 to 6 January 2006 for repeated poor judgment and decision-making.  Specifically, the Board noted your reporting senior’s (RS’s) statement that on multiple occasions you purposely chose to challenge the Marine Corps and its senior leadership to manipulate the outcome of situations to meet your personal desires.  The Board also noted that the Deputy Commander, Manpower and Reserve Affairs (DC (M&RA)), directed the termination of your orders.  The Board noted, too, that the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual, provides that reporting officials must document and report unsatisfactory performance, and lack of potential or unacceptable professional character.  The Board determined that your reporting official issued and processed your fitness report according to regulations.  The Board also determined that based upon the authority delegated to the DC (M&RA) by the Commandant of the Marine Corps for all matters pertaining to the management and execution of the ADSW program, the DC (M&RA) decision to terminate your orders was within his discretionary authority to do.   
 
Concerning your contention that retention on ADSW orders would have allowed you to obtain full active duty retirement, the Board determined that according to the ADSW orders, ADSW assignments are temporary, for short-term durations, and are not for the purpose of achieving an active duty retirement, or any other career incentives.  The Board also determined that as a reserve officer on ADSW orders, you were not entitled to a BOI, nor was it required.  
 
Concerning your JPAS Incident History entries, the Board found no evidence that your entries were reported to interfere with your ability to obtain civilian employment and you provided none.  The Board determined that the Department of the Navy Central Adjudication Facility (DoN CAF) is the appropriate agency to adjudicate your concerns regarding security clearance matters.  Therefore, you must submit an inquiry to the DoN CAF to appeal your incident history entries and clearance eligibility.  Accordingly, the Board concluded that there is no probable material error, substantive inaccuracy, or injustice warranting corrective action.  
 
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,