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


Docket No: 65-18 

JUN 11 2018 


Dear : 
This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552. After careful and conscientious 
consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to 
establish the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application 
has been denied. 

A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 2 May 2018. The names and votes of the members ofthe 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, relevant portions of your naval record and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

The Board carefully considered your desire to remove the Administrative Remarks (Page 11) 
6105 counseling entry dated 4 April 2017 from your official military personnel file (OMPF). 
The Board considered your contentions that the Page 11 counseling entry was issued prior to the 
investigation being adjudicated; your rebuttal statement was not entered into your OMPF; the 
issuing officer was not in your direct chain of command and he issued the Page 11 within 24 
hours prior to departing; you have since been cleared of all charges; you were issued an adverse 
fitness report prior to the investigation being fully adjudicated; and you have never been 
counseled for ethical concerns. The Board determined that the counseling entry met the 6105 
counseling requirements detailed in MCO 1900.16 (MARCORSEPMAN). Specifically, the 
Board concluded that the counseling entry provided written notification concerning 
deficiencies/impairments; specific recommendations for corrective action, indicating any 
assistance available; comprehensive explanation ofthe consequences offailure to successfully 
take the recommended corrective action; and a reasonable opportunity to undertake the 
recommended corrective action. The Board noted that, in accordance with Marine Corps policy, 
the commanding officer must sign adverse page 11 entries, but the contested Page 11 entry was 
signed by your Chief of Staff. Although the counseling entry was not signed by your Commanding Officer, 
the Board determined that strict compliance with procedural requirements 
is not required where the error is deemed harmless, and you were not seriously prejudiced when 
the Chief of Staff signed it. Regarding your rebuttal statement, the Board noted you were 
advised that you had five working days after acknowledgement ofthe Page 11 entry to submit a 
written rebuttal statement. The rebuttal statement provided in support ofyour application is 
dated 12 April 2017, which is after the five-day submission window. The Board noted that the 
Page 11 entry was issued "due to a loss oftrust and confidence in your ability ..." and did not 
require final adjudication ofthe investigation. The Board concluded that even though you have 
no previous counselings for ethical concerns, your contentions did not support a finding of an 
error or injustice and that the evidence you submitted was insufficient to support removing the 
contested Page 11 from your OMPF. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action cannot be taken 
at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of 
new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board. 
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption ofregularity attaches to all 
official records. Consequently, when applying fora correction of an official naval record, the 
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director