DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
             
Docket No: 3354-19                                                           
Ref: Signature Date 

This letter is in reference to your application of 19 March 2019 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 24 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 consolidate four of your 22 January 2015 Administrative Remarks (Page 11) 6105 counseling entries into just one Page 11 entry. 

The Board considered your contention that you were issued four separate Page 11s, one for each violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice, and that issuing four separate counseling entries was administratively incorrect because only one Page 11 entry was needed. 

The Board noted that, on 22 January 2015, you received non-judicial punishment for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), specifically four specifications of Article 92 (failure to obey order or regulation).  The Board also noted that you were issued a Page 11 for each specification of your Article 92 violation.  Specifically, on or about 21 November 2014 by making unauthorized contact with a recruit, causing him to fall over a wall locker; on or about 1 December 2014 by making unauthorized contact with a recruit by placing your hands around a recruit’s neck; on or about 13 December 2014 by making unauthorized contact with a recruit by placing your hand on the back of a recruit’s neck; and on or about 9 December 2014 by using profanity directed towards recruits on divers occasions.  You acknowledged (signed) each entry and chose not to submit rebuttal to any of them. 

The Board noted that, although your misconduct included four specifications of violation of Article 92, UCMJ, the Board determined that each entry met the 6105 counseling requirements detailed in MCO 1900.16 (MARCORSEPMAN).  Specifically, the Board noted that the entries provided written notification concerning deficiencies (each of which document separate incidents of misconduct that occurred on different dates), specific recommendations for correction action indicating any assistance available, 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 also afforded the opportunity to rebut the counseling, but chose not to.  The Board thus concluded that the contested entries are not administratively incorrect, and they do not constitute probable material error or injustice warranting corrective action. 

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, 

4/20/2020