DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No; 610-16 From: Chairman, Board for Correction ofNaval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW NAVAL RECORD OF Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552 Encl: (I) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) Case Summary (3) HQMC (JPL) memo dated 23 May 16 (4} HQMC (MIQ) memo dated 27 May 16 1. Pursuant to the provisions ofreference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member ofthe Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his record be corrected by removing all documents pertaining to his Relief for Cause and 6105 Administrative Remarks (Page 11) entry dated 19 March 2015, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). Enclosures (I) through (4) apply. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations oferror and injustice on 9 June 2016 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence ofrecord. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofthe enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered enclosure (3) and (4) advisory opinions provided by Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Head, Military Personnel Law Branch (JPL) and Manpower Information Quality (MIQ). 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts ofrecord pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice finds as follows: a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department ofthe Navy. b. Petitioner states, in part, that it was an injustice that he did not get a fair opportunity to prove his innocence at a court-martial. He exercised his right to refuse non-judicial punishment (NJP) and requested a court-martial. He states that after he refused NJP, his Battalion Commander signed off on his Relief for Cause package (RFC), and that after a command investigation, the Battalion Commander dismissed all pending legal action against him. He believes the RFC was used as a punitive measure. c. Enclosure (3) recommends that Petitioner's ]>age 11 entry dated 19 March 2015, Page 11 rebuttal letter dated 21 April 2015, Commanding Officer's notification and recommendation letters dated 15 April 2015, Petitioner's letter 5800 date 21 April 2015, Commanding General's letters dated 14 May 2015, and Petitioner's letter 5800 of7 July 2015, be removed from his OMPF. It states, in part, that Petitioner has met the burden that the Page 11 entry is unjust or written in error. Specifically, the relief for cause documents contain inconsistencies that support his claim ofreprisal for refusing NJP and demanding trial by court-martial. Adverse material may only be filed in an OMPF ifa servicemember has been given the opportunity to contest the matter. Petitioner was not afforded such an opportunity because his Page 11 and rebuttal failed to provide him specific notice ofhis alleged deficiencies. d. Enclosure ( 4) states, in part, that although the Page 11 entry was written in accordance with Marine Corps directives, it is unjust in nature. Specifically, Petitioner was relieved from drill instructor duty. However, there are no documented cases ofwrongdoing in his electronic service record. Additionally, his fitness report covering the same timeframe has been removed by the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB). CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration ofall the evidence ofrecord, and especially in light ofenclosures (3) and ( 4), and the removal ofhis fitness report covering the same timeframe by the PERB, the Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants relief. The Board concurs with enclosures (3) and (4) in that his Page 11 entry dated 19 March 2015, Page 11 rebuttal letter dated 21 April 2015, Commanding Officer's notification and recommendation letters dated 15 April2015, Petitioner's letter 5800 date21April2015, Commanding General's letters dated 14 May 2015, and Petitioner's letter 5800 of7 July 2015, should be removed from his OMPF. In view ofthe above, the Board recommends the following corrective action. RECOMMENDATION: a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing his Page 11 entry dated 19 March 2015, Page 11 rebuttal letter dated 21 April 2015, Commanding Officer's notification and recommendation letters dated 15 April 2015, Petitioner's letter 5800 date 21 April 2015, Commanding General's letters dated 14 May 2015, and Petitioner's letter 5800 of7 July 2015, from his OMPF. b. That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the Board's recommendation be corrected, removed or completely expunged from Petitioner's record and that no such entries or material be added to the record in the future. 4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) ofthe revised Procedures ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records (32 Code ofFederal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) 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 ofthe Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter. 5. Pursuant to the delegation ofauthority set out in Section 6(e) ofthe revised Procedtires ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records (32 Code ofFederal Regulation, Section 723.6(e)) and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority ofreference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary ofthe Navy. Executive Director