DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket 5378-16 
FEB 22 2017 

Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the provisions of l0 USC 1552.
 
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 November 2016. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations oferror and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings ofthis Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. 

On 2 August 2015, you received a Page 11 counseling sheet for instructing a noncommissioned officer to record a false physical fitness score (PFT) for two Marines during the required annual PFT. Your contention is that the Page 11 entry was unjust because your officer in charge issued and signed offon the Page 11 rather than your Commanding Officer in accordance to Marine Corps Order 1900.16. 
The Board noted that on 3 August 2015, you signed and acknowledged the Page 11, and wrote a statement taking full responsibility for your actions. The Board further concluded that the removal ofthe Page 11 is not warranted, and that such action would be unfair to your peers, against whom you will compete for promotions and assignments. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission ofnew evidence within one year from the date ofthe Board's decision. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption ofregularity 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 ofprobable material error or injustice. Sincerely, 

Executive Director