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

Docket No: 8612-20 
Ref: Signature Date 
 
SSGT  

Dear Staff Sergeant : 
 
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 7 September 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 12 January 2021 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Headquarters, Marine Corps Military Personnel Law Branch (JPL) and your response. 
 
The Board carefully considered your request to remove your 6 October 2020 Administrative Remarks (page 11) 6105 counseling entry and 13 October 2020 rebuttal statement.  The Board considered your contentions that your page 11 entry does not apply to the circumstances that it was issued for and the criteria for a relationship which constitutes fraternization does not align with the factors of the relationship you were involved in.  You also contend that based on the investigation there was no evidence to suggest your relationship with a commissioned officer adversely impacted good order and discipline, nor did your relationship degrade or threaten to degrade the character or status of the position that the commissioned officer held.  You claim that the Investigating Officer (IO) stated, “I do not believe the romantic relationship between . . . and . . . compromised the chain of command, resulted in the appearance of partiality, or otherwise undermined good order, discipline, authority, or morale.”  You also claim that the IO also stated, “. . . could have been compromised if their relationship was declared publicly and common knowledge to all.”  In response to the AO, you argued that you did not attempt to receive preferential orders and there was no attempt to serve under the commissioned officer’s command.  You also argued that there was no evidence to suggest that your relationship compromised the chain of command, resulted in the appearance of partiality, or otherwise undermined good order, discipline, authority, or morale. 
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO and determined that your page 11 entry is valid.  In this regard, the Board noted that pursuant to the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, you were issued a page 11 entry counseling you for being involved in a romantic relationship with a commissioned officer in violation of Article 1165, U.S. Navy Regulations.  The Board also noted you were properly counseled that according to the Marine Corps Individual Records Administration Manual (IRAM) and determined that the contested entry was written and issued according to the IRAM.  Specifically, the entry provided written notification concerning your deficiencies, specific recommendations for corrective action, where to seek assistance; the consequences for failure to take corrective action, and it afforded you the opportunity to submit a rebuttal.  Moreover, your commanding officer (CO) signed the entry and determined that your misconduct was a matter essential to record; as it was his/her right to do.   
 
Concerning the IO’s comments, the Board noted that the IO found that your relationship came to light after you made inquiries in an attempt to be assigned to Des Moines, Iowa upon completion of recruiter school to be in proximity of your boyfriend.  The Board also noted that the IO opined that your relationship could potentially lead a reasonable person experienced in the problem of military leadership to conclude that the good order and discipline of the armed forces has been prejudiced.  The Board noted, too, that the U.S. Navy Regulation provides that personal relationships between officers and enlisted members that are unduly familiar and that do not respect differences in grade or rank are prohibited.  The Board determined that your romantic relationship with a commissioned officer was a violation of Article 1165, U.S. Navy Regulations and that your CO had sufficient understanding of the facts and your circumstances to conclude that your page 11 entry was warranted.  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,
9/17/2021
Deputy Director