Docket No: 592-20 
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 
     
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments  
  (2) NAVMC 118(11) Administrative Remarks of 10 Jul 15 
   (3) NAVMC 118(11) Administrative Remarks of 17 May 17 
 (4) NAVMC 118(11) Administrative Remarks of 7 Aug 17 
 (5) NAVMC 118(11) Administrative Remarks of 18 Oct 17 
 (6) NAVMC 118(11) Administrative Remarks of 18 Oct 17 
 (7) Administrative Discharge Board Report of 21 Mar 18 
  
1.  Pursuant to the provisions of the reference, 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 enclosure (2) through enclosure (6) from his official military personnel file (OMPF).  
 
2.  The Board, consisting of  reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 2 March 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 Petitioner’s 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, found that, before applying to this Board, he exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.  The Board made the following findings: 
 
     a.  Petitioner was involved in domestic violence incidents between October 2016 and July 2017 that resulted in the involvement of law enforcement.  Petitioner was referred to the Family Advocacy Program (FAP).  On 16 November 2016, the FAP Incident Determination Committee (IDC) found that Petitioner did not meet the criteria for spouse physical abuse.  On 15 March 2017, the IDC found that Petitioner met the criteria for spouse physical abuse.  On 19 April 2017, the IDC found that Petitioner met the criteria for child neglect.  On 8 November 2017, Petitioner’s commanding officer recommended that Petitioner be administratively separated due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense.  On 21 March 2018, Petitioner’s administrative separation board unanimously found that the preponderance of the evidence did not prove any of the acts or omissions alleged and recommended that he be retained.   
 
     b.  On 10 July 2015, Petitioner was issued enclosure (2), a 6105 page 11 entry for having an inappropriate relationship with a lance corporal.  Petitioner elected not to submit a statement.   
 
     c.  On 17 May 2017, Petitioner was issued enclosure (3), a 6105 page 11 entry counseling him for being arrested on 22 January 2017 by the  police for spousal abuse.  The entry also noted that although civilian criminal charges were dropped and he was released from jail, the IDC found that he met the criteria for spouse physical abuse.   
 
     d.  On 7 August 2017, Petitioner was issued enclosure (4), a 6105 page 11 entry counseling him for being arrested on 22 July 2017 by the  Provost Marshall’s Office for an alleged domestic violence incident with his spouse that resulted in him being dropped from the 16-week men’s education program.  
 
     e.  On 18 October 2017, Petitioner was issued enclosure (5), a page 11 entry counseling him for incidents occurring on 3 October 2016, 26 October 2016, 22 January 2017, and 22 July 2017.  The entry also notified Petitioner that he is being processed for administrative separation for the commission of a serious offense and pattern of misconduct. 
 
     f.  On 18 October 2017, Petitioner was issued enclosure (6), a page 11 not recommending him for promotion for 12-months due to pending administrative separation.  
 
     g.  Petitioner contends that his administrative separation board found that the allegations against him were inconclusive due to a lack of evidence and recommended his retention in the Marine Corps.  Petitioner claims that prior to these events and allegations he had no derogatory marks or misconduct on his record. 
 
CONCLUSION 
  
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an error warranting partial corrective action.  In this regard, the Board noted that the Marine Corps Family Advocacy Program (FAP) Manual provides that, “A commander may not take administrative or disciplinary action against a service member based solely upon the IDC for an act of child abuse or domestic abuse . . . allegedly committed by the service member.”  The Board determined that although Petitioner’s 17 May 2017 page 11 entry noted Petitioner’s arrest and dropped charges, the basis for the entry was to counsel Petitioner on the IDC findings, therefore, the entry is in error and should be removed.   
 
The Board also noted that Petitioner’s administrative separation board unanimously found that the preponderance of the evidence did not support the allegations and he was retained in the Marine Corps. The Board noted, too, that according to the Marine Corps Individual Records Administration Manual (IRAM), “Do not make entries on page 11 which concern administrative discharge proceedings . . . if the proceedings, upon final review, do not result in an administrative discharge . . .”  Accordingly, the Board determined that Petitioner’s 18 October 2017 counseling entries noting his pending administrative separation should be removed.   
 
Concerning Petitioners 10 July 2015 and 7 August 2017 page 11 entries, the Board determined that Petitioner’s entries are valid and shall be retained in his record.  In this regard, Petitioner was counseled pursuant to paragraph 6105 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual for having an inappropriate relationship and for a domestic violence incident resulting in his removal from a mandated education program.  The Board also determined that Petitioner’s page 11 entries were written and issued according to the IRAM.  Specifically, the entries provided written notification concerning his deficiencies, specific recommendations for corrective action, where to seek assistance, and consequences for his failure to take corrective action and the entries afforded Petitioner the opportunity to submit a rebuttal, which he declined.  Moreover, Petitioner’s commanding officers signed the entries.   
 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. 
 
Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing enclosure (3), his 17 May 2017 Administrative Remarks (page 11) 6105 counseling entry. 
 
Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing enclosure (5), his 18 October 2017 Administrative Remarks (page 11) entry. 
  
Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing enclosure (6), his 18 October 2017 Administrative Remarks (page 11) entry. 
 
No other changes to Petitioner’s record. 
 
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 Regulations, 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.