DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SMS
Docket No: 3948-09
28 May 2009
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD @amameiil
i E..
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) Case Summary
1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner,
a member of the Marine Corps, applied to this Board requesting
removal of an administrative remarks (page 11) service record
entry dated 14 December 2007, as well as her rebuttal dated
20 December 2007.
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Sie, wi and tiie:
reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on
27 May 2009, 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. On 5 May 2005, Petitioner reenlisted in the Marine Corps
at age 35 after four prior periods of honorable service. On
2 February 2006, she was promoted to master sergeant. During
the period 27 September to 1 October 2007, using a government
computer, she exchanged personal electronic mail (e-mail)
messages with a male master sergeant regarding their past
relationship as well as three other Marines! conduct. These
e-mail's were subsequently forwarded to one Marine that she
referred to in the messag:: which resulted in a request mast.
On 14 December 2007, she received an adverse page 11 service
record entry regarding use of a government computer to
send inappropriate e-mail's and was advised to adhere to
regulations. On 7 January 2008, her commanding officer closed
the request mast after a command investigation determined that
the accusation of intentional sexual harassment could not be
proven or substantiated, but found that there was sufficient
evidence to show lack of professionalism by both master
sergeants, and as a result of this finding, she received a page
11 service record entry and the male master sergeant involved
received a non-punitive letter of caution. On 18 April 2008,
she received a favorable transfer fitness report and was
awarded a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) for her duty
performance during the period November 2003 to April 2008.
ce. With her application, Petitioner states in essence that
even though a command investigation found no evidence of sexual
harassment, she received an adverse page 11 service record
entry and the male master sergeant involved received a non-
punitive letter of caution. She further states that her
punishment was harsh considering that she has over 20 years of
service with no disciplinary action. With her application, she
submitted a copy of the e-mails as well as her favorable
transfer fitness report and MSM that encompassed the period
that she received the adverse page 11 service record entry.
d. Regulations authorize commanding officers to make adverse
page 11 service record entries on Marines for misconduct,
substandard performance, confirmed incidents of alcohol abuse,
or for administrative measures. Regulations also authorize
commanding officers to use non-punitive corrective action in
such cases.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record,
the Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants relief.
Specifically, the Board finds that although the adverse page 11
service record entry dated 14 December 2007, met the
requirements established by regulations, the Board believes
that disparate treatment occurred given that the male master
sergeant involved received a non-punitive letter of caution.
The Board further considers her overall service record,
favorable transfer fitness report and MSM that was awarded by
the same command that administered the adverse page 11 service
record entry. Therefore, the Board finds that the page 11
service record entry dated 14 December 2007, and her rebuttal
dated 20 December 2007, should be remceved from her naval
record.
No
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing
the page 11 service record entry dated 14 December 2007, as
well as her rebuttal dated 20 December 2007.
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 purposes, with no cross
reference being made a part of Petitioner's naval record.
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.
Dron) Aron
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN BRIAN J. GEORGE
Recorder Acting Recorder
5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section
é6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of
Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulation, 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.
\D.
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Dir
oo.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00605-06
By correspondence dated 14 November 2003 (copy at Tab B), Petitioner was advised that his selection by the CY 2003 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board had been revoked for unspecified “unprofessional conduct and poor judgment” exhibiting failure to maintain the high standards expected of a Marine Corps staff noncommissioned officer.e. Enclosure (7) documents that a member of the Board’s staff contacted the HQMC Enlisted Promotion Section and was informed that had Petitioner’s selection by the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10555-07
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner applied to this Board requesting that his naval record be corrected by setting-aside the nonjudicial punishment (NJP) imposed on him on 4 December 2002, and removing the record of the NJP and all documents related thereto from his naval record. e. On 4 December 2002, while serving as a staff sergeant, Petitioner received NJP for violating a lawful written order, by contacting KH by e-mail on or about 21 November 2002 [sic] in violation...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07271-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 January 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review (PERB) dated 23 October 2000 with enclosures, a copy of which is attached. ‘\ ‘: 1 i/-f{_ “,’ ‘I From : D...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00098-01
The Board did not consider this request, because this investigation report is not in his record. Petitioner also argued that the Finally, he asserted the reviewing h. Enclosure (2) is the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) in Petitioner ’s case, reflecting their decision to deny his request to remove the contested fitness report. The memorandum for the record at enclosure (7) reflects that both the contested adverse fitness report and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10463-06
They recommended removing the entry dated 14 November 2003 because it was not signed by Petitioner’s commander, as required because it indicated she could be the subject of administrative separation if she failed to take Corrective action.CONCLUSION:Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the contents of enclosure (2), the Board finds the existence of an error and injustice warranting the following corrective action: acknowledged the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08032-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 11 January 2002, a copy of which is attached. The petitioner has not substantiated his allegations disclaiming performance counseling and undue influence on the Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION MASTER SERGEANT C part of Gunnery Sergeants insigh to gain first-hand briefing offic Senior (Captai (Lieutenant Co e-mail...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2011-05044
The Article 15 she received on 5 April 2007 be removed from her records. The commander however, did find the violation of Article 92 as substantiated. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends a partial grant since the issuing commander found sufficient evidence did not exist to substantiate the three alleged violations of Article 134, UCMJ.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06711-08
[Petitioner] was involuntarily discharged from the Marine Corps with an honorable characterization of service and has been on continuous active duty since October 1994 until her separation. Accordingly, we recommend that [Petitioner's] request for separation [sic] be denied. Furthermore, the law and regulations allow commanders to recommend separation of commissioned officers without the recommendation of a BOI when they have less than five years of active duty service.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 07244-03
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board was unable to find the contested fitness report was in reprisal for your request mast. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013314
The applicant also provided a memorandum, dated 1 August 2006, in which her company commander essentially issued her a letter of concern. While the record of her removal from the recommended list for promotion to SSG was not among the documents in her military records, the applicant provided sufficient evidence which shows that she was removed from the recommended list for promotion to SSG by her promotion authority, who based his decision on the recommendation of a removal board that was...