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

Docket No: 10605-18  
Ref: Signature Date  

From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records  
To:    Secretary of the Navy  

Ref:   (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) MCO P1070.12K W/CH 1 (IRAM) (c) MCO 1900.16 W/CH1 (MARCORPSEPSMAN)  

Encl:  (1) DD Form 149 
       (2) Administrative Remarks (Page 11) 6105 counseling of 3 Apr 03 
       (3) Administrative Remarks (Page 11) 6105 counseling of 19 Aug 04  

1.  Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board, requesting that his record be corrected by removing three Administrative Remarks (Page 11) counseling entries (enclosures (2) and (3)). 

2.  The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 5 December 2019 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record.  Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of Petitioner’s 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, found as follows: 

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

b.  On 3 April 2003, Petitioner was issued enclosure (2), a Page 11 entry counseling him on his substandard performance, specifically on his use and possession of illegal drugs: “This counseling was precipitated by your intimating to an NCO that you had used drugs and that you were concerned about the results of your recent urinalysis . . . .” Petitioner elected not submit a rebuttal. 
 
c.  On 19 August 2004, Petitioner was issued enclosure (3), a Page 11 entry counseling him on his “failure to report to duty on numerous occasions and for failing to follow orders/directives 
as provided by my OIC/NCOIC.  The most recent incident of UA was on 19 August 2004 . . . .” Petitioner elected to not submit a rebuttal. 

d.  There is a duplicate copy of enclosure (3) in Petitioner’s OMPF. 

e.  Petitioner’s Change of Duty(CD) Fitness Report (FitRep) for the reporting period of 1 May 2004 to 13 October 2004 was marked adverse due to his Page 11 counseling entries during the reporting period.  The Page 11 counseling that documents Petitioner’s UA (enclosure (3)) was documented in this FitRep.  However, in his rebuttal to both his RS’s and RO’s comments, Petitioner failed to address or rebut the allegations that he was UA.  Petitioner also elected not to submit a rebuttal to the Page 11 counseling entry at the time it was issued. 

f.  On 24 June 2006, Petitioner was honorably discharged from the U.S. Marine Corps. 

CONCLUSION 

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief. In this regard, the Board noted that there are duplicate entries of enclosure (3) in Petitioner’s OMPF.  Therefore, the Board concluded that the duplicate counseling entry of 19 August 2004 (enclosure (3)) shall be removed from Petitioner’s OMPF, but all other Page 11 counseling entries shall remain in his record. 

The Board determined that the 3 April 2003 and 19 August 2004 entries created a permanent record of a matter that Petitioner’s CO deemed significant enough to document.  The Board also determined that the entry met the 6105 counseling requirements detailed in MCO 1900.16 (MARCORSEPMAN).  Specifically, the Board noted that the entry provided written notification concerning Petitioner’s deficiencies, specific recommendations for corrective action indicating any assistance available, a comprehensive explanation of the consequences of failure to successfully take the recommended corrective action, and a reasonable opportunity to undertake the recommended corrective action.  Furthermore, Petitioner was afforded the opportunity to rebut each of the counselings, but he declined to submit a rebuttal in either case. 

The Board considered Petitioner’s contentions that the allegations of misconduct contained in the entries were false and unsupported, and that he only signed the Page 11 entry concerning drug 
use because he was so relieved that charges were not preferred, he “caved in.”  TheBoard also 
considered his contention that, although Petitioner wanted to make a rebuttal to the other entries, he was unable to.  The Board, however, determined that the record contained no evidence to support his contentions, and he provided none.  The Board concluded, therefore, that there was no probable material error or injustice warranting corrective action beyond removal of the duplicate 19 August 2004 entry. 

RECOMMENDATION

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

Petitioner’s record be corrected by removing the duplicate of the 19 August 2004 Page 11 
counseling entry (enclosure (3)) from Petitioner’s OMPF. 

4. 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 of the Board’s proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 

5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval 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 of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy. 

Sincerely,