DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No:3115-17 
MAY 05 2017 

From: Chairman, Board for Correction ofNaval Records 
To: Secretary ofthe Navy 

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO 
Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552 
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments 
(2) Subject's naval record (excerpts) 
(3) CO, lst ltr 1610 LEGAL dtd 3 Jul 13 
(4) Support ltr from dtd 22 Feb 16 
(5) CMC ltr 1610 MMRP-13/PERB dtd 6 Apr 2017 

1. Pursuant to the provisions ofreference (a), Petitioner, an active duty enlisted Marine, filed 
enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected 
by removing his Administrative Remarks (Page 11) 6105 counseling dated 16 October 2013 
from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and Electronic Service Record (ESR). In 
addition, the Petitioner requests removal from his OMPF, ESR, and the Total Force Retention 
System (TFRS) the relief for cause (RFC) from recruiting duty and that he be awarded the 
Marine Corps Recruiting Ribbon (MCRR). Petitioner also impliedly requested restoration ofhis 
additional military occupational specialty (AMOS) 8411 (recruiter), setting aside the termination 
of his special duty assignment (SDA) pay, and removal ofthe draw case code "AO" (punitive 
relief from SDA) from the Marine Corps Total Force System (MCTFS). Enclosures(!) through 
(5) apply. 

2. The Board reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 17 April 2017 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 of 
the enclosures, 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, finds as follows: 

a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available 
under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy. 

b. Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner. 

c. Petitioner commenced recruiting duty on 29 November 2010. 

d. On 22 March 2013, as the result ofa command investigation (CI), it was recommended 
Petitioner be processed for RFC and receive a district level nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for 
failing to obey an order or regulation and failing to report an order or violation. 

e. On 8 April 2013, Petitioner was suspended from recruiting duty. 

f. On 3 June 2013, Petitioner's RFC was approved and his 8411 AMOS was voided. 

g. On 3 July 2013, Petitioner's commanding officer submitted a request to rescind his RIC 
(enclosure (3)), due to the fact Petitioner's NJP was rescinded and that upon further investigation 
it was revealed that Petitioner acted appropriately based on the information at hand. 
h. On 16 October 2013, Petitioner received a Page llcounseling for misconduct and RFC for 
misconduct. Petitioner rebutted the Page 11. By reason ofthe RFC, he was not awarded the 
MCRR, despite his having served for more than the minimum required 30 months.

i. On 21November2013, Petitioner received an adverse TR Fitness Report for the period 
1 January 2013 to 31 October 2013. A rebuttal was submitted on 26 November 2013.
 
j. On 22 February 2016, the former Commanding Officer,  provided 
a letter ofsupport (enclosure (4)) indicating that the initial assessment ofthe CI was wrong and 
Petitioner's RFC from recruiting duty was in error. 

k. On 6 April 2017, the Performance Evaluation Review Board removed the adverse TR 
report for the period 1 January 2013 to 31 October 2013. (Enclosure (5)) 

CONCLUSION 

Upon review and consideration ofall the evidence ofrecord, and especially in light ofthe 
contents ofenclosures (3) through (5), the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting 
the requested relief. Specifically, the Board finds that the contested RFC was unwarranted. 
Additionally, the CO, who had initially favorably endorsed the RFC made a compelling case for 
rescinding it. 

In view ofthe above, the Board recommends the following corrective action. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

Remove the Page 11 dated 16 October 2013 from Petitioner's ESR, OMPF, and MCTFS. 

Remove all documentation surrounding Petitioner's RFC from his ESR, OMPF, MCTFS, and 
TFRS. 

Award Petitioner the MCRR. 

Reinstate Petitioner's SDA pay from 6 September 2013 until his transfer on 31 October 2013. 
Remove Petitioner's draw case code "AO" from MCTFS. 

Restore Petitioner's AMOS of8411 in MCTFS. 

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. It is certified that 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 Procedures ofthe 
Board for Correction ofNaval 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 ofreference (a), has been approved by the Board on 
behalf ofthe Secretary ofthe Navy. 

Executive Director