DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 4195-20 
Ref: Signature Date 

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:  Secretary of the Navy  

Subj:  REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF 
Ref:  (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552 
(b) MCO P1070.12K (IRAM) 
(c) MCO 1900.16 (MARCORSEPMAN) 
 
Encl:  (1) DD Form 149 
(2) Administrative Remarks (Page 11) 6105 counseling entry of 8 Jul 19 
(3) Petitioner’s ltr 1200 NVP of 23 Jun 19 
(4) CO,  ltr 1070 CO of 18 Jun 19 
(5) CO,  FIRST ENDORSEMENT 1200 CO of 19 Jun 20 
(6) CIG,  ltr 5000 CIG of 25 Jun 20  

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that his naval record be corrected by removing his 21 June 2019 Administrative Remarks (Page 11) 6105 counseling entry. 

2. The Board, consisting of             , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 20 May 2021, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of the naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows: 

a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy. 

b. On 21 June 2019, Petitioner was issued enclosure (2), a Page 11 6105 entry counseling him for failure to improve his decision making skills and poor judgment. He was also counseled for verbally accosting and escalating an argument with a civilian, and failure to notify his command of the incident. The counseling also noted that he had been verbally counseled on three occasions for events involving poor judgment. Petitioner submitted enclosure (3), a written rebuttal and dashboard camera evidence, asserting that his actions did not warrant a Page 11 counseling. 

c. Petitioner contends that he was counseled by his Sergeant Major, not his Commanding Officer (CO), and that his request to speak to his CO was denied. He asserts that the entry was not entered into his official military personnel file until 6 March 2020, after he submitted his warrant officer package. Petitioner also asserts that a military policeman and a Marine Corps judge advocate observed the dashboard camera evidence and determined there was no wrongdoing by Petitioner. 

d. Petitioner furnished recommendations for removal of the contested Page 11 from his chain of command. Enclosures (4) and (5). Petitioner also furnished enclosure (6), a letter from the Command Inspector General (CIG) who determined that an investigation did determine that the Page 11 6105 counseling issued to Petitioner was incorrectly processed and issued prior to the police report being finalized, and that the final police report determined no wrongdoing by Petitioner. The CIG noted that the inclusion of that incident and the administrative errors which followed makes the Page 11 6105 counseling questionable. 


CONCLUSION 
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting relief. In reaching its decision, the Board noted that references (b) and (c) provide commanders wide discretion regarding the subject-matter of a counseling, so long as a commanding officer has the necessary understanding of the facts and circumstances surrounding the subject matter of the counseling in order to exercise the judgment entrusted upon him or her. 

The Board determined that, according to the CIG letter at enclosure (6), and based on the chain of command’s recommendation, the issuing officer did not have sufficient information when the contested Page 11 was issued. The Board considered the three verbal counselings noted in the Page 11 entry, and determined that the incident in question was what prompted Petitioner’s Commanding Officer to issue the counseling, and that if not for the incident in question, Petitioner would likely not have been formally counseled in a Page 11 6105 entry. The Board determined that it is unjust for the Page 11 to remain in Petitioner’s official military personnel file (OMPF), and concluded that the entry and rebuttal shall be removed from Petitioner’s OMPF. 

RECOMMENDATION 
In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. 

Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing the 21 June 2019 Page 11 6105 counseling entry and his 23 June 2019 rebuttal at enclosures (2) and (3), respectively. 

Any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the Board’s recommendation be corrected, removed, or completely expunged from Petitioner’s record, and that no such entries or material be added to the record in the future. This includes, but is not limited to, all information systems or database entries that reference or discuss the expunged material. 
 
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 of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled matter. 

5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulation, Section 723.6(e)) and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy. 


6/4/2021 

3