DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 6955-18 Ref: Signature Date Dear : This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 August 2019. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this 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, a 12 July 2018 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Performance Evaluation Review Board, a copy of which was previously provided to you for comment, as well as applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board carefully considered your request to remove your fitness report for the reporting period 1 June 2016 to 15 December 2016. The Board considered your statement and contentions that the report is unjust and administratively incorrect. The reporting occasion for the report is “transfer” but you did not transfer until 3 August 2017. The reviewing officer (RO) and third officer sighter (3OS) submitted the report 174 days after the end of the reporting period. The attribute marks and adverse mark in item G-3 “judgement” are unjust, as you have no derogatory material or counseling to address the downward movement of the marks. You further contend that the adverse report was based upon the conclusions of a command investigation that was not conducted correctly and did not afford you the opportunity to properly explain your decision-making. The Board substantially concurred with the AO that the report is administrative and procedurally correct as written and filed. The Board noted the occasion and end date of the contested report, in addition to your Master Brief Sheet. The Board determined that, contrary to your contention that you did not transfer until 3 August 2017, you received a subsequent fitness report for the reporting period 16 December 2016 to 7 July 2017 while assigned to , for which your performance was assessed by a different RS and RO. Concerning your contention that the contested report was submitted late, the Board noted the RO included a statement, “This report is late due to delays in MRO’s response and RO TAD and investigation into the facts of MRO’s assertions.” While reporting officials should make every effort to submit fitness reports in compliance with the timeline established in the Performance Evaluation System Manual, the Board determined that the RO’s statement sufficiently justified the late submission of the report. The Board noted that a command investigation was directed to investigate allegations of hazing that involved members under your command that were originally presumed to be involved in an altercation. The Board also noted the investigating officer’s findings that incidents of hazing were committed by several Marines that named themselves “The Dog Pound” and, notwithstanding the most recent assault, there was a history of hazing incidents that involved the subject of the investiation. In the 2 December 2016 investigation, the investigating officer recommended to the Commanding Officer, , that you be held accountable for exceptionally poor judgment in the handling, reporting, and adjudication of the incident, and that you should be relieved of your duties as Training Company Commander. Consequently, you were relieved for cause due to a loss of trust and confidence and received the contested fitness report with an adverse attribute mark for judgement. The Board further noted the RS statement that you provided reporting that the event involving the hazing of a Marine in your unit was minor. The command investigation concluded there were significant violations of the UCMJ. The RO concurred with the RS and further commented that it “is clear that MRO misrepresented to the RS - either intentionally or through gross negligence - the true nature of the incident in question…” The Board noted your argument that at no time during your inquiry did you attempt to mislead or deceive the RS nor attempt to lessen the severity of the assault. From the first report to you through adjudication you kept the RS up to date of all information you had and the steps you were taking to reach a conclusion. The Board, however, found no evidence that the command investigation was conducted inappropriately. As such, the reporting senior was not in error to base his determination on the results of the investigation and appropriately justified the adverse mark for item G-3 “judgement.” Concerning your contention regarding the adverse nature of the report, the Board substantially concurred with the AO. In this regard, the report is adverse due to your relief for cause due to your Commanding Officer’s loss of trust and confidence. While a counseling entry is recommended, it is not required, nor is there a requirement for any punitive documentation. Based upon the fore mentioned determinations, the Board thus concluded that there is no probable material error or injustice in the report, and therefore corrective action is not warranted. 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 the submission of new matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149. New matters are those not previously presented to or considered by the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity 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 of probable material error or injustice. Sincerely, 10/7/2019 Executive Director