DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
 
Docket No: 5493-20 
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 15 June 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, as well as the 1 September 2020 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Office of Legal Counsel (JPL).  The AO was provided to you on 29 September 2020, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response.  When you did not provide a response, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration. 
 
The Board carefully considered your request to remove your 8 May 2020 Report of Misconduct (ROM) and all associated documents.  The Board considered your contentions that the inclusion of your ROM was erroneous and not in compliance with Marine Corps policies and procedures.  You also contend that although the Marine Corps Legal Services Administration Manual (LSAM) designates the Deputy Commandant, Manpower & Reserve Affairs (DC, M&RA) as the Show Cause Authority, it does not grant DC, (M&RA) the authority to place adverse material addressed via administrative measures into an officer’s record.  You claim that the General Court Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) had the authority to determine the appropriate disposition when addressing substantiated misconduct; one option was to issue a non-punitive letter of caution (NPLOC), and if that disposition option is chosen, the GCMCA is required to issue a ROM and include a statement that the matter was addressed via administrative measures.    
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO that you have not shown that the inclusion of your ROM was in error or unjust.  In this regard, the Board noted that the Commanding General,  substantiated your misconduct, determined that your conduct met the definition of an alcohol-related incident, and that you violated Article 134 (Disorderly Conduct, Drunkenness), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  The Board also noted that although the CG, recommended that your ROM not be included in your record, the DC, (M&RA) determined that your misconduct was officially substantiated, consequently, he was bound by law and regulations to file all relevant adverse material in your record.  The Board determined that the Commandant of the Marine Corps designated DC, (M&RA) as the designated Show Cause Authority for the Marine Corps, thus contrary to your contention, the DC (M&RA) has the authority to direct that adverse material be included in an officer’s record according to Title 10 U.S.C. § 615.  Moreover, the administrative adjudication of your case by your chain-of-command does not invalidate the fact that your misconduct was substantiated and the inclusion of your ROM was required.  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, 
 
6/25/2021
Executive Director