Docket No. 3696-20
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 22 April 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 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.  The Board also considered the 12 June 2020 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Military Personnel Law Branch (JPL), which was previously provided to you.  Although you were afforded an opportunity to submit a rebuttal, you did not do so. 
 
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 11 December 2018 Administrative Remarks (Page 11) counseling entry and to remove the Report of Misconduct (ROM) and all subsequent endorsements and material.  The Board considered your contentions that the Commanding General, Task Force 51/5, did not have the authority to formally counsel you or to generate the ROM that was submitted to Judge Advocate Division.  You argue that the counseling and ROM are an abuse of discretion and a gross injustice, and have negatively impacted your military career.  You also contend that your actions did not meet the definition of misconduct as contemplated by SECNAV Instruction 1920.6C, and therefore you should not have been counseled for them.  
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO that both the counseling and ROM were justified and were completed in accordance with regulations by the officer authorized to take such administrative actions in your case.  The Commanding General agreed with you that your actions did not rise to the level of misconduct described in SECNAV Instruction 1920.6C, which is why he did not recommend that you be required to show cause to retain your commission.  The Board also determined that the contested documents were inserted into your official military personnel file in accordance with MCO P1070.12K.   
 
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,