DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
 
Docket No: 3043-20 
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. 

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 application on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 2021. The names and votes of the panel members 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 the 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, to include the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). Additionally, the Board considered the 21 May 2020 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by Headquarters, Marine Corps (JPL) and 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 a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 

You initially enlisted in the Marine Corps on 5 August 1996 and most recently reenlisted 10 February 2000. On 7 August 1998, you were issued an Administrative Remarks (Page 11) 6105 entry counseling you for “verbal and physical confrontations with peers, dereliction of duty, and belligerent attitude toward seniors and subordinates.” On 27 November 1998, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for disrespecting a noncommissioned officer (NCO) onboard the USS . 

On 9 February 2000, you were issued a Page 11 6105 entry counseling you concerning a “negative confrontation with peers, verbal disrespect and a belligerent attitude toward seniors and subordinates.” On 18 April 2001, you were formally counseled with a Page 11 6105 entry for insubordinate conduct towards a staff NCO, failure to obey an order, and being argumentative with a staff NCO on 5 April 2001, 9 April 2001, and 12 April 2001. On 13 November 2002, you were again counseled and issued a Page 11 6105 counseling entry for falsifying official documents by making a false entry into the duty logbook and failing to report for duty turnover. On 11 May 2003, you were issued another Page 11 6105 entry counseling you for deficiencies in your performance as exemplified by your failure to remain in the assigned area after the expiration of liberty and demonstrating a “history of questionable judgment.” On 10 October 2004, you received NJP for insubordinate conduct toward the Guard Chief by saying to him that “[I] will not stand post at the mini tower” while onboard , , which resulted in your reduction in rank to corporal, forfeiture of pay, and restriction. On 22 October 2005, after twice failing to select for promotion to the rank of staff sergeant, you were honorably discharged by reason of non-retention on active duty due to high year tenure and issued a RE-4 (not recommended for reenlistment) reentry code. 

The Board carefully considered your request to remove the NJP received on 10 October 2004, reinstate your rank to E-5, and provide backpay. The Board considered your contentions that the underlying basis of your reduction in rank was “procedurally defective at the time of the NJP,” the reduction in rank was “unfair at the time,” and the reduction in rank is “inequitable now” and “does not serve a further purpose.” The Board also considered the background information you provided in your statement and legal brief regarding the “individual bias” your staff sergeant showed against you. However, the Board substantially concurred with the AO. The Board also specifically noted the counseling you received throughout your career, which you did not mention or dispute in your statement or legal brief. The Board further noted, with respect to the October 2004 NJP, that you accepted NJP despite the advice of the attorney you spoke with, that you did not appeal the NJP, that you did not dispute the event, nor did you exercise your right to submit a rebuttal to the resulting adverse fitness report. Additionally, the Board considered your statement within the legal brief that your command improperly communicated with the promotion selection board resulting in you failing to select for promotion but noted you did not provide any evidence in support of your contention. Based on the available evidence, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to warrant granting your requested relief of removing the 10 October 2004 NJP. 

The Board also carefully reviewed your request for a discharge upgrade, upgrade to your reentry code, and change to your narrative reason for separation. The Board noted your Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) reflects you received an honorable character of service when discharged therefore an upgrade to your discharge is not required. The Board considered the advocacy letters submitted on your behalf which reflect on your dedicated service to the Marine Corps and your post-service life. Based on the available evidence, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to warrant granting your requested relief of upgrading your reentry code to an RE-1 (recommended for reenlistment) and changing your narrative reason for separation to “for convenience of the Government.” 

The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Wilkie Memo. These included, but were not limited to, your desire to upgrade your discharge and contention that your staff sergeant had an individual bias against you. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. 

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, 
5/4/2021 

3