D E P A R T M E N T  O F  T H E  N A V Y  
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 

2 NAW ANNEX 

WASHINGTON DC  20370-5100 

LCC : lc 
Docket No.1395-99 
26 July 1999 

From:  Chairman, Board for Correction or Naval Records 

Secretary of the Navy 

Subj:  GUNNERY SERGEANT 

RETIRED 

Ref: 

(a) Title 10 U.S.C.  1552 

, USMC, 

Encl : 

DD Form 149 wlattachments 
Msg 2119222 APR 96 
Ltr MARSPTBN 1400 MSB/amh of 8 May 96 
Ltr MARBKSGNDDEF 5800 S-1, undated 
Ltr c a ~ t  
First Endorsement 5800 CO of 21 Jun 96 
Ltr from 
CMC ltr, -of 
Petitioner's  Microfiche Record 

5800 Airo of  i3 Jun 96 

to CMC of 13 Dec 96 

3 May 99 

1.  Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), subject, 
hereinafter, referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with 
this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval 
record be corrected to show Petitioner was promoted to paygrade 
E-8 effective 1 May 1996 and transferred to the Retired List in 
paygrade E-8. 
2.  The Board, consisting of Mses.  adi is on',  Taylor, and Mr. 
Pauling reviewed Petitioner's  allegations of error and  injustice 
on 20 July 1999 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, 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 justice, finds as 
follows: 

a.  Petitioner had been selected for promotion to Master 

Sergeant, paygrade E-8, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps 
(CMC) advised the unit the effective date of the promotion would 
be 1 May 1996. 

Docket No.  1395-99 

b.  On 21 April 1996, Petitioner's  commanding officer 

recommended to CMC that his promotion to Master Sergeant be 
withheld pending the outcome of a pre1imina.r~ investigation into 
possible fraternization between Petitioner and a female 
Lieutenant Junior Grade (LTJG) who was attached to the Naval 
Hospital, Guantanamo Bay as a nurse.  See enclosure (2). 

c.  Petitioner and the LTJG had known each other when both 

were on active duty as enlisted personnel and were friends prior 
to the LTJG receiving her commission. 

d.  Lt 

, USNR, was appointed to conduct the 

preliminary-submitted 
26 April 1996.  Although no fraternization or misconduct was 
found to have occurred between the Petitio 
was verbally counseled by her superior aga nst entering into 
unduly familiar relationships with enliste 

his findings on 

the LTJG she 

e.  By enclosure (3) dated 8 May 1996, the Commanding 

Officer, Marine Support Battalion informed CMC (MMPR-2) that the 
Navy investigation had been completed and there were no charges 
or punitive actions pending or anticipated  Petitioner was 
recommended for promotion to Master Sergea t with his strongest 
endorsement for promotion. 

f.  The letter, dated 8 May 1996, recommending the promotion 

be made effective was addressed to CMC via Commanding General 
(COl), Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, VA 
22134.  Subquently, Commanding Officer, Company Lima was advised 
by the Staff Judge Advocate at Quantico that it was unhappy with 
the prkliminary investigation and asked that a Marine 
investigating officer be appointed to ascertain additional 
information. 

g.  Captain 

a formal investi-into 
between the Petitioner and the LTJG.  See enclosure (4). 

USMC, was appointed to conduct 
the alleged fraternization 

h.  As evidenced by enclosure (5)~aptd- investigation 

did not disclose any fraternization or misconduct between 
Petitioner and the LTJG.  He recommended several actions, one of 
which was that the Petitioner should be promoted immediately to 
the rank of Master Sergeant with all the authority, 
responsibility, and privileges afforded to that grade. 

i.  The Commanding Officer, Marine Barracks, Ground 

Defense/Security Force, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba placed an 
endorsement dated 21 June 1996 on Captai-investigative 
report, in which he disagreed with the report and recommended 
that Petitioner not be promoted.  See enclosure (6).  Petitioner 

Docket No.  1395-99 

was not a member of the Marine barracks command, the 
investigation was conducted by the Marine barracks as a courtesy 
to the Commanding Officer, Marine Support Battalion. 

j.  On 13 December 1996 the Petitioner submitted a letter, 
attached as enclosure (7), to CMC requesting that he either be 
promoted or charged with a violation under the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ).  He stated that he had been tried, 
convicted, and punished for an incident which he had never been 
charged.  CMC denied his request to be promoted. 

k.  Petitioner was transferred to the Retired List effective 

30 April 1997 in paygrade E-7. 

1.  In correspondence attached as enclasure (8), the office 

having cognizance over the subject matter involved in 
Petitioner's  application, has commented to the effect that the 
request does not have merit and recommends denial. 

MAJORITY CONCLUSION: 

Upon review and consideration of all the eyidence of record, 
notwithstanding the comments contained in enclosure 0 ,  the 
majority of the Board finds the existence of an injustice 
warranting the requested relief.  In this connection, the 
majority consisting of  Ms. Madison and Mr. Pauling, finds that 
there is insufficient evidence to show that Petitioner ever 
engaged in fraternization with the LTJG.  The majority takes note 
of the fact that the base was an extremely small community and 
the social facilities were not designated l~commissionedf or 
"enlistedw but were used by both.  Although they were seen in 
various social environments at the same time no one ever 
perceived them to be ntogether, as a couplew.  The preliminary 
investigation conducted by Lt- 
investigation conducted by Captain 
fraternization or misconduct between the petitioner and the LTJG. 
The majority, also, concludes that the Commander of the Marine 
Barracks did not have an adequate factual basis to override the 
result of two (2) different investigating officers of two (2) 
difference services.  Furthermore, the majority also finds it 
significant  that the Commanding Officer of Company Lima had 
recommended that the Petitioner should be promoted.  Ms. Madison 
and Mr.  Pauling agree. 

USN, and the formal 

USMC, found no 

MINORITY CONCLUSION:  The Minority, Ms. Taylor, opined that since 
there was the appearance of fraternization she must concur with 
the advisory opinion. 

Doc'--!t No.  1395-99 

MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION: 

That Petitioner's  naval record be corrected, where appropriate, 
to show that: 

a.  Petitioner was advanced to paygrade E-8 effective 

1 May 1996. 

b.  Petitioner was transferred to the Retired List on 1 May 

1997 in paygrade "E-8" vice paygrade "E-7". 

MINORITY RECOMMENDATION: 

Petitioner's  request to be advanced to pay rade E-8 and to show 
retired in paygrade E-8 is denied. 

4.  It is certified that a quorum was pres nt at the Board's 
review and deliberations, and that the for going is a true and 
complete record of the Board's  proceedings in the above-entitled 
matter. 

ROBERT D.  ZSALMAN 
Recorder 

5.  The foregoing action of the Board 
review and action. 

9 cting Recorder 

bmitted for your 

Docket No 

I specifically concur with the findings and conclusions of the 
majority of the Board and the majority  recommendation for relief 
is approved. 

KAREN S. HEATH 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy 

(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)