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 14 July 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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.  The Board also considered the 8 April 2020 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps (JPL), and your 8 April 2020 and 9 April 2020 rebuttals. 
 
The Board carefully considered your request to remove your 19 November 2014 Administrative Remarks (Page 11) 6105 counseling entry from your official military personnel file (OMPF).  The Board considered your contention that the entry should be removed because it contains false information regarding the incident (weapons violation) you were counseled for, because the charge was dismissed in civilian court, and you were found not guilty.  You assert that the entry states that you “failed to inform the police officer of a loaded weapon when pulled over,” which resulted in a Misconduct of a Weapon 13-3102 charge.  You claim that all information in regards to that statement are false because the  Gun Law did not require you to disclose your weapon to law enforcement, providing it was in a closed compartment.  You also assert that the police officers asked the driver and front passenger if there was a weapon in the vehicle and they said no because they did not know that you were carrying, due to the fact that you have a concealed carry license.  You also assert that when the police officer asked you if there was a weapon in the car, you answered “yes,” which also contradicts your counseling entry. 
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO, noting that you were not counseled for the offense that was ultimately dismissed in civilian court.  You were cited for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit; however, you were counseled for a “gross error in judgment” for failing to inform the police officer that there was a loaded weapon in the vehicle when you were pulled over on 11 November 2014.  You were also counseled for associating with “known troublemakers.” You have failed to demonstrate that the ultimate dismissal of the charge is relevant to the contents of the contested entry. 
 
With regard to your 8 April 2020 and 9 April 2020 rebuttals, the Board determined that applying for a conceal carry permit in , after being cited for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit in violation of  Revised Code 13-3102A1, is immaterial, as well as your assertion that you have not associated with the same individuals or received any negative material since the incident. 
 
With regard to your contention that your first sergeant never properly explained what type of paperwork [the 6105 counseling] was and where it was going to end up, the Board noted that the entry provided written notification concerning your deficiencies, specific recommendations for corrective 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.  The counseling entry also notified you that it would be filed in your OMPF.  You acknowledged (signed) the entry and submitted a written rebuttal, which is also included in your OMPF.  The Board thus concluded that the Page 11 entry does not constitute probable material error or injustice warranting removal from your OMPF. 
 
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,