DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 2313-20 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction ofNaval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVI W OF NAVAL RECORD OF XXX XX USMC (RET) Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. § 1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/enclosures (2) CG, Training ommand ltr 1920 C 4 72 of 7 Aug 15 (3) LtCol ltr of 10 Aug 15 (4) CMC ltr 1920 JPL of 16 Feb 16 1. Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, a retired commissioned officer ofthe Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction ofNaval Records (Board), requesting that his naval record be corrected by changing his retirement paygrade to 05 (lieutenant colonel). Petitioner's case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec'y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 2. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, reviewed Petitioner's allegations oferror and injustice on 28 July 2020 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofthe enclosures, relevant portions ofPetitioner's naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner's all gations of error and injustice, found as follows: a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulation within the Department of the Navy. b. On 27 February 2014, while on active duty, Petitioner married an enlisted Marine, who was also on active duty. On 19 March 2014, Petitioner's command initiated a preliminary inquiry (Pl) into allegations ofan inappropriate relationship. During the PI, Petitioner denied that he was in a romantic or unduly familiar relationship with the enlisted Marine. On 1 June 2015, the day after the enlisted Marine retired, Petitioner submitted a dependency application to record her as his dependent spouse. ubsequently, a command investigation (Cl) was directed to inquire into the circumstances ofthe relationship. On 7 August 2015, Petitioner's Commanding General (G) submitted a Report of Misconduct, enclosure (2), to the Commandant ofthe Marine Corps (CMC). c. On 10 August 2015, Petitioner submitted a request for retirement in lieu of further administrative processing, stating that the retirement request is based on his '"misconduct of lying to an investigating officer about my marriage to an enlisted Marine," enclosure (3). Petitioner admitted to committing misconduct and that his performance was substandard. Petitioner also acknowledged that he could be retired in the lesser grade of major, but requested to retire in his current grade of lieutenant colonel. Although the CG, favorably endorsed his request. the CG, Training and Education Command recommended that a Board of Inquiry (BOI) determine Petitioner's retirement grade. The CG, Marine orps recommended that Petitioner' s request to be retired in lieu offurther administrative processing be approved, but that Petitioner should not be retired as a lieutenant colonel as "only through his intentional deception, he was able to attain retirement eligibility in his present grade." Enclosure (4). The CMC concurred with the CG, recommendation, and forwarded Petitioner's case. d. On 25 April 2016, the Assistant Secretary ofthe avy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved Petitioner's request to be retired in lieu offurther administrative processing, and determined that he shall be retired in the lesser grade ofmajor. Petitioner was honorably retired in the grade of major on 30 June 2016. Enclosure (4). e. Petitioner contends that the Report of Misconduct is invalid because, although he elected not to make any statements, the Report purportedly contains assertions that he did not make. Petitioner argues these untrue statements in the Report influenced the CMC to recommend the Assistant ecretary ofthe Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) to approve retirement in the lesser grade of 04 (major). f. Petitioner contends that enclosure (4), the recommendation from the CMC to retire him in the lesser paygrade ofmajor is inequitable as he had served with distinction as a lieutenant colonel from 1 October 2012 through 30 June 2016. Petitioner contends that he did meet the time-in-grade requirements under Title 10, U.S. Code to retire as a lieutenant colonel. Petitioner was commissioned on 5 April 1996 and promoted to 05 on 1 October 201 2. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration ofall the evidence of record, the Board concurred with the determination that Petitioner began the underlying inappropriate relationship before Petitioner had attained retirement eligibility in the grade of lieutenant colonel. Consequently, the last grade that Petitioner served satisfactorily was in the grade ofmajor. Accordingly, the Board determined that retirement at a lesser paygrade of 04 shall be upheld. RECOMMENDATION In view ofthe above, the Board recommends no relief be granted. 4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record ofthe Board's proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 5. The foregoing action ofthe Board is submitted for your review and action. 10/19/2020 Executive Director PRINCIPAL DEPUTY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (M&RA) DECISION: (Performing the Duties ofthe Assistant Secretary ofthe Navy (M&RA)) Reviewed and Approved Board Recommendation (Deny Relief) PTDO ASN(M&RA)