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

Docket No: 9236-18 
Ref: Signature date 

Dear

This letter 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 that 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 26 November 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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.
 
The Board carefully considered your request to remove your 29 February 2016 Administrative Remarks (Page 11) 6105 counseling entry from your official military personnel file (OMPF).  The Board did not consider your request to also remove your adverse fitness report (20151101 ­20160801) because you did not first exhaust all available administrative remedies by petitioning the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) before petitioning this Board.
 
The Board considered your contention that although you were counseled for falsifying the 5 August 2015 morning report, you did not have access to the morning report in Marine On Line (MOL), making it impossible for you to falsify the morning report.  You assert that it was the second reprimand you received for the same incident, and that you received it as a master sergeant, although you were a gunnery sergeant when the incident occurred.

The Board noted that, on 10 September 2015, your commanding officer (CO) issued you a non-punitive letter of caution (NPLOC) for reporting another Marine present for duty when the Marine was actually conducting work for your personal business during the time of absence.  Your CO also determined that your actions were due to a lapse of judgment, and were not a demonstration of any malevolent intent.  Subsequently, an anonymous Inspector General (IG) complaint was filed.  Although the report of investigation was not available to the Board, the Board noted that you were issued another Page 11 6105 on 29 February 2016, counseling you for falsifying a morning report to allow a sergeant to work at your business, for disobeying a direct order to only employ the sergeant outside of working hours, and for failing to conduct an operation risk management (ORM) with the sergeant.  You acknowledged the counseling and submitted a rebuttal.  In your rebuttal, you apologized and took “full responsibility” for your actions.  You noted that the incident occurred when you were a gunnery sergeant, and that you did not recall submitting the morning report on 5 August 2015. You also explained that you employed the Marine because he was experiencing financial hardship, and that you were never given an order not to employ the sergeant.  Lastly, you stated that all inspections were done in accordance with the Department of Transportation, but the ORM form was not filled out. 

Your fitness report for the reporting period 1 November 2015 to 1 August 2016 was rendered adverse due to adverse trait marks for “decision making ability” and “judgment.”  Your reporting senior noted that you  “willingly and knowingly allowed a sergeant under [your] charge to travel an unsafe distance, a distance of over 1600 miles in 24 hours, to deliver a vehicle for [your] personal business” and that you “allowed the sergeant to deliver said vehicle duringworking hours when the sergeant was ran present for duty on the morning report.” In response, you apologized “for this digression.”  Your third officer sighter (3OS) determined that there were no factual differences or inconsistencies with the report, noting that you exercised poor judgment and decision making ability by placing a subordinate Marine at personal risk as well as forfalsifying official documents reporting the Marine as “present for duty” on the morning report while the Marine was working for you in a personal, business capacity hundreds of miles distant.
 
With regard to your contention that you did not falsify the morning report, that the counseling was the second reprimand you received for the same incident, and that you received it as a master sergeant, although you were a gunnery sergeant when the incident occurred, the Board determined that, after your NPLOC was issued, the findings and recommendation of a subsequent investigation gave sufficient reason for your CO to issue your 6105 counseling.  The Board did not find it relevant or improper that the counseling was issued after you were promoted to master sergeant, even though the incident occurred when you were still a gunnery sergeant.
 
Moreover, the Board determined that the counseling entry creates a permanent record of a matter your CO deemed significant enough to document, and your evidence did not prove otherwise.  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 your deficiencies, specific recommendations for correction 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.  You were afforded the opportunity to rebut the counseling, and that rebuttal is included in your record.  The Board thus concluded that the record does not constitute probable material error or injustice warranting any corrective action.  The Board was not persuaded otherwise by your submissions, including the character letters on your behalf or your awards. 

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,