DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                    BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                2 NAVY ANNEX
                          WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

                                                       BJG
                                                       Docket No: 7701-05
                                                       14 October 2005

      From:      Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
      To:  Secretary of the Navy

      Subj:      CPL
               REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

      Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552

      End: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 13 Sep 05 w/attachment
               (2)     HQMC MIO memo dtd 11 Oct 05
               (3)     Memo for record dtd 14 Oct 05

      1.   Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject,
      hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this
      Board requesting that his naval record be corrected by changing the
      proficiency/conduct marks of “3.5/3.0” dated 7 October 2002 and
      “1.0/1.0” dated 6 May 2003 to “NA [not applicable]/NA.” He further
      requested that the conduct mark of “2.9” dated 31 July 2003 be
      changed to “NA,” leaving the uncontested mark of “4.5” in
      proficiency. A copy of the Marine Corps Total Force System Record of
      Service, reflecting the proficiency/conduct marks in question, is in
      enclosure (1) at Tab A.

      2.   The Board, consisting of Messrs. Bourgeois, Chapman and Swarens,
      reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 14
      October 2005, 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 injustice, finds as follows:

          a.     Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
      administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations
      within the Department of the Navy.




      b.    In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), as amended by the
memorandum for the record at enclosure (3), the HQMC Manpower Information
Operations, Manpower Management
Information Systems Division has commented to the effect that Petitioner’s
request has merit and warrants favorable action.




CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially
in light of the contents of enclosures (2) and (3), the Board finds the
existence of an error and injustice warranting the following corrective
action.

RECOMMENDATION:

     a.     That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by amending his
         proficiency/conduct marks as follows:

         (1)     Entries dated 7 October 2002: Change from “3.5/3.0” to
         “NA/NA.”

         (2)     Entries dated 6 May 2003: Change from “1.0/1.0” to
         “NA/NA.”

         (3)     Entries dated 31 July 2003: Change conduct mark from “2.9”
         to “NA,” leaving in the record the uncontested proficiency mark of
         “4.5.”

     b.     That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to
the Board’s recommendation be corrected, removed or completely expunged
from Petitioner’s record and that no such entries or material be added to
the record in the future.

     c.     That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner’s naval
record be returned to the Board, together with a copy of this Report of
Proceedings, for retention in a confidential file maintained for such
purpose, with no cross reference being made a part of Petitioner’s naval
record.












                                      2












4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for
Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section
723.6(c)) 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.
      ~





ROBERT D. ZSALMAN      JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
Recorder    Acting Recorder

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.



                                                   W. DEAN PFIEFFER
                                                   Executive Director


























                                      3

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                   HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
                              3280 RUSSELL ROAD
                                   QeANTICO, VIRGINIA 221 34-5 1 03 IN
                                                                REPLY REFER
                                                                TO:

                                                                1070
                                                                MIO
                                                                11 OCT 2005



MEMORANDUM FOR   EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Subj: BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF CORPORAL           USMC


1.    Corporal   ‘s application concerning his request to correct his
assigned duty proficiency and conduct markings of 3.5/3.0 assigned on
20021007, 1.0/1.0 assigned on 20030506, and 4.5/2.9 assigned on 20030731
has been reviewed. Paragraph 4005 of MCO P1070.12K, Marine Corps Individual
Records Administration Manual (IRAN), prescribes guidance and instructions
in the recording and reporting of conduct and duty proficiency marks for
Marines in the grade of Corporal and below.

2. The following comments and opinions are provided.

     a.     Policy in effect concerning assignment of a conduct mark below
4.0 for any reason other than a courts-martial or nonjudicial punishment,
must be documented with a page 11 entry stating the reason or reasons for
that assignment. Markings for duty proficiency below 3.0 also requires a
paqe 11 entry to document the reason or reasons. Corporal does not refute
the circumstances surrounding his Summary Court-martial and subsequent
reduction, only the administrative actions of his former commander when he
was assigned conduct and duty proficiency marks. Documentation on file in
his field service record book (SRB) and official military personnel files
(OMPF) do not contain information to support conduct markings below 4.0 for
marking occasions of 20021007 and 20030731.

     b. On 20020731, Corporal     received semi-annual markings of 4.3/4.4.
During this marking period, he received three page 11 counseling entries;
one for failure to maintain acceptable level of physical fitness, one for
not recommended for promotion due to substandard performance, and one for
lack of physical courage. On 20021007, he received PD markings of 3.5/3.0,
marks that should at a minimum, mirror his previous markings because there
is nothing documenting why his assigned conduct marks were below 4.0. On
20030506, the RD conduct markings assigned is supported by the Summary
Courts-martial he received. However, his commander did not follow the
standards published in the IRAM  which set the standards in the marking
range from 2.0 to 2.9. On 20030731, Corporal         assigned conduct
markings below 4.0 without documentation per the IRAM. The duty proficiency
marking assigned for the RD occasion was below 3.0 but not documented per
the IRAM.





Subj: BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF CORPORAL


3. The guidance and standards set forth in the IRAN gives commanders full
discretion in assigning marks outside of these standards for good and
sufficient reasons. However, if a conduct mark is below 4.0, it must be
documented by either a courts-martial, nonjudicial punishment, or a page 11
entry. For the  two alledged marking occasions, PD and SA, Corporal
commander did not follow procedures established per the IRAM. Concerning
the marks assigned for his RD marking occasion, his commander may have been
overly zealous in assigning Corporal he 1.0 marks. Following the guidelines
of the IRAN, his marks would have not fallen below 2.0 per the IRAN. In
view of the above, it is recommended that the Board for Correction of Naval
Records approve Corporal - s request for relief by replacing the assigned
markings in all three marking occasions with N/A.


4.    Corporal   has reached the end of his enlistment contract and is
currently on terminal leave. His active duty expires on 21 October 2005,
therefore, request immediate board action to allow him an opportunity to
request reenlistment. Point of contact is




                                  Manpower Information Operations,
                                  Manpower Management Information
                                  Systems Division























                                      2