Docket No: 10364-19 Ref: Signature Date Dear : This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code. After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted 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 8 December 2020. 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. The Board carefully considered your request to remove your 8 November 2017 and 17 November 2017 Administrative Remarks (page 11) counseling entries. You also request to remove your name from the Marine Corps Officer Disciplinary Notebook Management System (ODNMS). The Board considered your contentions that, (1) the Marine involved in the training incident referenced in your 8 November 2017 page 11 entry was found guilty at Court-Martial; (2) your former Commanding General (CG) was bias while going thru the decision making process regarding the entry of your name in the ODNMS, (3) there was no substantiated evidence to support that you were derelict in your duties, (4) the new SJA provided legal review of the command investigation (CI) and had preconceived notions of what occurred, (5) the only assistance you received was with the proof reading of your page 11 rebuttal, and (6) the CI was conducted by an officer from instead of . You assert that the Marine and his Defense Counsel did not believe that you were derelict in your duties in preparing the platoon for the exercise. You also assert that your CG counseled you one-on-one to speak freely, he asked your understanding of what happens to Battalion Commanders and Battalion Gunners that have Marines die on live fire ranges and he confirmed that “heads rolling” was standard operating procedure, he held your upcoming change of command over your head and two of your allegations were similar to that of the Battalion Gunner’s. Further, you claim that you signed your 17 November 2017 page 11 entry because you were trying not to rock the boat, and the Marine referenced in the entry initiated actions to avoid deployments and participating in field exercises. The Board noted that pursuant to the Marine Corps Individual Records Administration Manual (IRAM), you were properly counseled under paragraph 3005 for substandard performance. Specifically, you were issued a 8 November 2017 page 11 entry counseling you for failing to properly supervise the actions and personnel of the engineer platoon, who were attached to your battalion leading up to the conduct of a live fire range, failure to alert platoon leadership of your intentions regarding the range until the day of the event, failure to evaluate the training status and abilities of the engineer platoon, failing to observe the low morale and discipline of the platoon leading up to the range, and failing to ensure proper Operational Risk Management controls were in effect. The Board also noted that you were issued a 17 November 2017 page 11 entry counseling for failing to properly address and forward a Request Mast submitted to the Regimental Commanding Officer, failure to investigate allegations of hazing, failure to report the hazing incident, and failure to refer a Marine to the Equal Opportunity Advisor to make a proper complaint of discrimination or harassment. Concerning your contentions regarding your 8 November 2017 page 11 entry, the Board reviewed your statement, however, the Board found no evidence of bias or that your chain command violated any Marine Corps regulation or acted inappropriately by issuing the contested counseling entries and you provided none. The Board noted that the CG’s Report of Misconduct (ROM) was reviewed by the CG, , and the CG, with the ROM. Specifically, he agreed that you were ultimately responsible for your battalion’s safe and successful execution of Range 108, the execution was neither safe nor successful, and he concurred that you were derelict in the performance of your duties. Moreover, the CG, noted that your Request Mast matter documented in your 17 November 2017 page 11 entry was substantiated during a CI and you admitted to being derelict in the performance of your duties. The Board determined that the contested entries were written and issued according to the IRAM, the entries provided written notification concerning your deficiencies, specific recommendations for corrective action, and consequences for failure to take corrective action, the entries afforded you the opportunity to submit a rebuttal, your CG signed the entries, and determined the matters were significant to document in your record, as it was his right to do. Concerning your request to remove your name from the ODN, the Board noted that according to the Marine Corps Legal Administration Manual (LEGADMINMAN) the ODNMS is an internet database used by the Marine Corps to report and track all officer misconduct and substandard performance cases. The LEGADMINMAN does not provide provisions under which officers’ names can be removed, however, if the General Courts Martial Convening Authority (CGMCA) finds that misconduct did not occur, procedures are outlined to close the case in ODNMS. In view of the foregoing, the Board found no basis to close your case in the ODNMS. Moreover, the Board relies on a presumption of regularity to support the official action of public officers and, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, will presume that they have properly discharge their official duties. Accordingly, the Board concluded that there is no probable material error or injustice warranting corrective action. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon 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,