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


Docket No: 1306-19
Ref: Signature Date 


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 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 3 March 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 2 February 2018 unit punishment book (UPB) entry, which documents your 2 February 2018 nonjudicial punishment (NJP), and all associated documents from your official military personnel file (OMPF). The Board considered your contentions that you were not guilty of the offenses but pleaded guilty in order to put the incident behind you and quickly return to training, and because you were coerced and intimidated by your first sergeant.  The Board also considered your assertion that you were not aware of the full repercussions the NJP would have on your career. 

The Board noted that, on 2 February 2018, you received NJP for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 92 (failure to obey order or regulation) by consuming alcohol under the age of 21 in violation of MCO 1700.22G), and Article 134 for wrongfully soliciting another Marine to make a false official statement. You were advised of your rights under Art 31, UCMJ, given the opportunity to consult with a military lawyer, and advised of your right to demand trial by court-martial in lieu of NJP.  

Prior to the imposition of NJP, you signed a statement, acknowledging that you had been given an opportunity to examine the evidence that would be considered by your commanding officer (CO).  You were also given an opportunity to make a personal statement in your defense, and present other evidence, to call any other witnesses, and to offer anything that would lessen the seriousness of your offenses or mitigate them.  You responded with “positive record, got caught up in situation” and “made a mistake.” After submitting your statements, you agreed to accept NJP and you were advised of your right to appeal.  As punishment, you were awarded forfeiture of $428.00 (suspended) and 14 days’ restriction. You did not appeal, but, on 7 November 2018, you requested that the NJP be set-aside.  

On 2 February 2018, you were issued an Administrative Remarks (Page 11) 6105 entry counseling you for violating the UCMJ, Articles 92 and 134.  You were also issued a Page 11 promotion-restriction entry.  You acknowledged (signed) both entries and chose to submit a rebuttal addressing both. In your rebuttal, you admitted to being at a hotel party where “there was alcohol involved,” although you denied drinking alcohol.  You also stated that you pleaded guilty in order to quickly return to training and put the situation behind you.  You acknowledged that you deserved the punishment, but that you were not aware that it included a six-month promotion-restriction period.  You asserted that there was no evidence of the purportedly false accusations, and that, had the gravity of the situation been fully explained, you would not have risked so harsh a punishment.  You requested that you be able to complete extra military instruction, or some other form of professional study on leadership in place of the NJP. 

On 7 November 2018, you requested that your NJP be set aside. You denied that you coerced anyone into making a false statement, and you asserted that exculpatory evidence was intentionally omitted from the NJP proceedings, that only incriminating statements were provided to the imposing CO, that you were not given the opportunity to review all evidence used against you prior to imposition of NJP, that your first sergeant influenced the process by intimidation and coercion, and that you accepted NJP without understanding the full repercussions it would have on you career. On 21 December 2018, your CO returned your request “with no further action” and recommended that you submit an application to this Board.  

With regard to your contentions that you were not guilty of the offenses and were coerced and intimidated by your first sergeant, the Board noted that you, there is no credible or independent evidence to support your contentions, and that your CO’s determination was based upon a preponderance of the evidence, which showed that you violated Articles 92 and 134.  The Board noted that, prior to the imposition of NJP, you were given the opportunity to view the evidence that would be considered by your CO, and that you could make a personal statement in your defense.  The Board noted that, when given this opportunity, you did not deny drinking alcohol, but, instead, you stated that you “got caught up in the situation,” and, when you were given the opportunity to offer anything that would lessen the seriousness of your offenses or mitigate the punishment, you did not deny drinking alcohol, but instead stated that you had “made a mistake.” Accordingly, the Board concluded that there is no probable material error or injustice warranting removal of your NJP.  

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 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.