DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 3825-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) NAVMC 118(11) 6105 counseling entry of 23 May 17 (3) ltr of 2 Sep 17 (4) Fitness report for the reporting period 16 Mar 17 to 30 Jun 17 (5) HQMC ltr 1070 JPL of 18 Jul 19 1. Pursuant to the provisions of the reference, Petitioner, a staff non-commissioned officer of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting to remove from his official military personnel file (OMPF), the Administrative Remarks (page 11) 6105 counseling entry and fitness report for the reporting period 16 March 2017 to 30 June 2017. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 7 April 2020, and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice, found that, before applying to this Board, he exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy. The Board made the following findings: a. Petitioner was issued enclosure (2), a 6105 entry counseling him for failing to return seven distress shout beacons to ( ) supply upon return from deployment. Petitioner contends that the entry was issued based upon incomplete information from a preliminary inquiry (PI). He also contends that the investigating officer failed to interview individuals directly involved with the missing gear and based his recommendation for administrative action on insufficient information. As evidence, Petitioner submitted an advocacy letter from his former Officer-in-Charge (OIC) which states: Petitioner is not culpable for the missing equipment. The received the QUADCONS and all equipment locked within. Furthermore, the investigation did not go far enough to find the missing equipment. The service member that received the reissued QUADCONS, nor I or Petitioner were interviewed during the investigation. b. The advisory opinion (AO) recommended granting Petitioner’s request. In this regard, the AO noted that there was substantial evidence that Petitioner was ordered to obtain the distress beacons and other equipment and brought it to his OIC as ordered. The AO opined that the PI essentially highlighted procedural flaws by MRSG. The AO also noted that the investigating officer did not interview the Petitioner or his OIC. The AO concluded that Petitioner followed the orders of his OIC in obtaining and delivering the equipment to him, responsibility for returning the equipment lied with the OIC, thus it was grossly unjust for the Petitioner to receive the page 11 and adverse fitness report. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. The Board noted the advocacy letter from Petitioner’s OIC and substantially concurred with the AO that his page 11 entry and adverse fitness report should be removed. The Board also noted that Petitioner signed for the seven distress beacons, as directed by his OIC, delivered the beacons to his OIC, and was then deployed to . The Board noted that the PI did not include interviews with the OIC or Petitioner and determined that the PI failed to include personnel key to the investigation and unjustly recommended administrative action against Petitioner. The Board determined that the adverse nature of Petitioner’s contested fitness report was unjust because the basis for the report was the page 11 counseling entry. The Board thus concluded that the page 11 counseling entry and fitness report shall be removed. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing his 23 May 2017 page 11 counseling entry. Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing his fitness report for the reporting period 16 March 2017 to 30 June 2017. Any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the Board’s recommendation be corrected, removed, or completely expunged from Petitioner’s record, and no such entries or material be added to the record in the future. This includes, but is not limited to, all information systems/database entries that reference or discuss the material being expunged. 4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(e)), and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy. 4/24/2020