DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 8912-20 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 21 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. Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will 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 23 May 2019 Administrative Remarks (page 11) counseling entry and 24 June 2019 rebuttal statement. You also request to remove your 27 June 2019 Report of Misconduct and all related derogatory material. The Board considered your contentions that your page 11 entry is factually inaccurate and contains statements that were not corroborated by the Investigating Officer (IO), the commanding officer’s (CO’s) statement that you acted unprofessionally and executed poor judgement are baseless, and the IO concluded that no wrongdoing took place. You also contend that the preliminary inquiry (PI) was incomplete, only four individuals were interviewed when eight were present, and the Report of Misconduct (ROM) statement “However, pursuant to multiple witnesses statements in enclosure (1), the rebuttal is not accurate” is not accurate, as the accuser was the only supposed witness to the alleged act. You assert that the decision to include adverse material in your record was unjust, despite the disclosures at your Board of Inquiry (BOI) that the adverse material was inaccurate. You also assert that your Article 1150, U.S. Navy Regulations Compliant of Wrongs (Article 1150) was negatively endorsed by General Officers (GOs) to include the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps (ACMC) because the adverse material was substantiated by the PI, although, there were no findings of fact that support the GO’s justification. You claim that contrary to the allegations, you did not kiss , and that you danced with her, she did not leave your side the rest of the time at the bar, you were seen holding hands with leaving the bar, and you were escorting her out of the bar because she was extremely intoxicated. You also claim that you were seen outside her barracks room because you escorted her there, you did not enter her room, and you went to your room and went to sleep. The Board, however, determined that your page 11 entry is valid and that your record should remain unchanged. In this regard, the Board noted that a PI was conducted regarding alleged inappropriate behavior between you and a civilian employee, Ms. . The PI noted that you and were alleged to have been inebriated and were observed dancing in a suggestive manner, you were also observed kissing and being “handsy” in the van on the ride back to your lodging. The PI noted that you both denied acting inappropriately. The IO determined that at worst a one-time indiscretion occurred in the presence of others and recommended that you be directed to avoid interaction with and that you engage in group settings with no alcohol. The IO also recommended no further action. The Board also noted that your commanding officer (CO) concurred with the PI, and determined that both parties acted in an unprofessional manner and exercised poor judgment, and that you would be counseled. Subsequent to his determination, your CO issued you a page 11 entry pursuant to paragraph 3005 of the Individual Records Administration Manual (IRAM). The Board also determined that you were properly counseled and that the contested entry was written and issued according to the IRAM. Specifically, the entry provided written notification concerning your deficiencies and it afforded you the opportunity to submit a rebuttal. Moreover, the Commanding General (CG), signed the entry and determined that your conduct was a matter essential to record, as it was his right to do. The Board further determined that the CG, acted within his discretionary authority and had sufficient knowledge of the facts to determine that your page 11 entry was warranted. Concerning your contention that the PI was incomplete, the Board determined that the decision regarding witnesses is left to the discretionary judgement of the IO. The Board noted that your CO reviewed and concurred with the results of the PI. The Board also noted that the PI was reviewed at various level of your chain of command and the PI was not found to be in error, accordingly, the Board determined that your PI was legally sufficient and not in error. Concerning your contention that there was only one witness and regarding the ROM statement “However, pursuant to multiple witnesses statements in enclosure (1), the rebuttal is not accurate,” the Board noted that according to the PI, a Marine was interviewed because “it was from his concern that this matter was brought to the attention of the chain of command” and another Marine was interviewed because “she had also made the chain of command aware of potential inappropriate behavior.” The Board determined that the PI supports the ROM statement that there was more than one or multiple witnesses to your interactions with . Concerning your contention that the Deputy Commandant (DC), Manpower and Reserve Affairs (M&RA) decision and subsequent GO endorsements to include your adverse material in your record was not supported by the findings of fact, the Board determined that DC, M&RA acted within his discretionary authority as the designated Show Cause Authority for the Marine Corps. In this regard, the Board noted that your BOI found that the preponderance of evidence did not prove the allegations and recommended that you be retained. The Board also noted that the DC, M&RA directed that your case is to be closed, and that your adverse material concerning the matter will be included in your official military personnel file (OMPF). As a result of the DC, M&RA’s decision, you filed an Article 1150. The Board noted, too, that as the General Court Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA), the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps determined that your Article 1150 was without merit, the GCMCA determined that the DC, M&RA’s decision to include the adverse material in your OMPF was in accordance with regulations and thus denied your request for redress. Moreover, as the final review authority, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) to the Commandant of the Marine Corps concluded that the GCMCA’s actions were in substantial compliance with Article 1150 and his actions were not an abuse of discretion. The Board further noted that according to the IRAM, the CMC will file correspondence containing adverse material that the Marine has had the opportunity to contest, explain or rebut. . . examples include BOI’s and other matters that reflect on the character, performance, professional qualification and fitness of the officer. The Board substantially concurred with the SJA to the Commandant of the Marine Corps conclusion that the actions by the GCMCA were in compliance with regulations. The Board also determined that the decision to include your adverse material in your OMPF was appropriate and according to regulations. Moreover, the Board further determined that your CO and GO’s in your chain of command were not bound or limited by the opinions or recommendations of an investigation and have the discretionary authority to determine if an officer’s conduct should become a matter of record. 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. 10/1/2021 Sincerely, Executive Director