DEPARTMENI OF THE NAVY
‘701 Ss. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
=== Aa
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref: fal TLElLe 10 u.5.€. E562
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 3 Jun 13 w/attachments,
as amended by DD Form 149 dtd 19 Jul 13
) -HOMC JAR7 memo dtd 22 Jul 14
) MCRC memo dtd 27 Aug 14
) Counsel's 1tr ata 10 Nov 14 w/enclosures
)
Subject's naval record
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 by removing the Deputy Assistant Chief of
Staff, G-3 letter 1560 MCRC (ON/E) of 17 March 2010 with
enclosure, subject: Forwarding of Marine Corps Enlisted
Commissioning and Education Program (MECEP) Disenrollment
Documents; Case of [Petitioner] (copy at Tab A). Petitioner
also requested immediate reinstatement into the MECEP.
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Hicks, Spooner and Swarens,
reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 20
November 2014, 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 enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps Judge
Aavocate Division (JAR7) commented to the effect that
Petitioner's request regarding the contested documentation,
which reflects he was disenrolled from the MECEP for domestic
violence and substandard performance, has merit and warrants
favorable action because of administrative errors in his
disenroklment. JAR? concluded that Petitioner “was denied due
process...when the April 2005 and July 2005 ciyilian law
enforcement investigations into alleged incidents of domestic
violence were included in his OMPF [official Military Personnel
File] without allowing him the opportunity to contest, explain,
or rebut the information.” JAR7 further stated that “Allowing
[Petitioner] an opportunity to contest, explain, or rebut the
information regarding the two 2005 incidents would have served
the purpose of allowing [Petitioner] to rebut the information
prior to CG [Commanding General] MCRC [Marine Corps Recruiting
Command]’s final action on his disenrollment and its inclusion
in his OMPF.” JAR7 also concluded that the Performance Review
Board that recommended Petitioner’s disenrollment was improperly
constituted. Specifically regarding the July 2005 incident,
JAR7 concluded that the Commanding Officer’s having learned of
it by obtaining information from the Camp Pendleton Family
Advocacy Program did not violate Marine Corps Order (MCO)
P1700.24B (Marine Corps Personal Services Manual).
c. In enclosure (3), the MCRC commented to the effect that
Petitioner should not be reinstated into the MECEP, stating that
“this command would have disenrolled him from the MECEP based on
multiple deficiencies-not including the domestic violence
matters.” MCRC noted that Petitioner’s letter of 2 November
2009 (copy at Tab A) acknowledges that he “saw enough
[counseling notations] before July [2009] to warrant a
performance review board independent of my arrest [on 11 July
2009, civilian authorities arrested Petitioner on suspicion of
battery against his wife] .”
d. Enclosure (4) concurs with JAR? but disagrees with MCRC,
maintaining that Petitioner should be reinstated into the MECEP
because his disenrollment was administratively defective.
Counsel explains the point Petitioner was making in the
quotation from his letter of 2 November 2009 was that action to
effect his disenrollment would not have been initiated, but for
the domestic violence arrest. He contends this arrest should
not have been held against Petitioner, because it did not result
in charges against him, a civil conviction, or any military
disciplinary action. Counsel contends that the incident of July
2005 should not have been considered either, as the command
learned of it as the result of a violation of both MCO P1700.24B
and the Privacy Act of 1974.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record,
and especially in light of enclosure (2), the Board finds the
existence of an error and injustice warranting partial relief,
specifically, removal of the disenrollment documentation. The
Board finds that Petitioner’s request for reinstatement into the
MECEP should be denied, as his disenrollment was justified
without considering any of the domestic violence incidents. In
view of the foregoing, the Board directs the following limited
corrective action:
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing
the Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff, G-3 letter 1560 MCRC (ON/E)
of 17 March 2010 with enclosure, subject: Forwarding of Marine
Corps Enlisted Commissioning and Education Program (MECEP)
Disenrollment Documents; Case of [Petitioner].
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 the remainder of Petitioner's request be denied.
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.
JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
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.
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07838-10
JAMS stated that the NUP “stemmed from [Petitioner’s] failure to report a civilian DUI arrest,” however, the UPB entry actually says he was punished “for failing to notify his command of his DUI conviction [emphasis added] .” JAM5 noted that “the requirement to report the conviction (rather than the arrest) is lawful.” d. Enclosure (4) explains that PERB directed removing the contested fitness report in light of enclosure (3). e. In enclosure (5), the Marine Corps Recruiting Command (MCRC)...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04467 12
As shown in enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has directed removing the contested fitness report. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Spain, Storz and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 17 October 2012, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing all...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 03925-04
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the fitness reports for 1 January to 1 April 2002, 2 April to 22 June 2002, 23 June to31 December 2002, 1 January to 30 June 2003, and 1 July to26 August 2003. We do not, however, recommend that his voided MOS 8411 be reinstated and the recoupment of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09077-07
By letter dated 7 June 2005, the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) recommended to the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) that Petitioner’s name be withheld from the FY 2006 Colonel Promotion List. This advisory stated he was withheld from the FY 2006 promotion list because of the adverse fitness report (which had not yet been removed), and that without the report, his record is “obviously competitive.” Petitioner was not considered by the FY 2007 Colonel Selection Board. p. Enclosure (15)...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 02280 12
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 by removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)") entry dated 30 March 2009, a copy of which is at Tab A. That his record be corrected further to restore his AMOS of 8411. c. That his record be corrected further to show his entitlement to SDA pay for 21 July 2010 to 13 June...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05552-11
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed the written application at enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by removing the report of misconduct dated 20 November 2008 and related documentation, a copy of which is at Tab A. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the contents of enclosures (3) and (4), the Board...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06283-02
That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing from the service record page “I 11 ( “Administrative Remarks (1070)“) entry dated 21 July 1993 the following sentence: understand that action will be taken to ’void my additional MOS of 9962 and to revoke the authority to wear the Navy/Marine Corps Parachutist Insignia. states in his rebuttal statement, "refused to jump during a d. Paragraph 4012 of the IRAM provides guidance in the preparation of a page 11 entry if a Marine has been...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05473-00
(6), the M arine Corps Recruiting Command ’s request to remove his page 11 entry should be MOS , and 2 In correspondence attached as enclosure (7), the HQMC Enlisted Assignment Branch (MI&A) has also commented to the effect that Petitioner ’s request to remove his page 11 entry should be approved, but his requests concerning his RFC should be denied. Point of contact is M ecommended that the Board equest for removal of the VMC 118(11), page 11 .entry dated Acting Head, Field Support...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04770-09
The Board, consisting of Ms. Wilcher and Messrs. Bowen and McBride, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 9 July 2009, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below shouid be taken on the available evidence of record. Region 2, MCESC [sic] [Marine Corps Embassy Security Group], Counseled this date for the following deficiencies: Violations of Article 133 and Article 134 UCMI [Uniform Code of Military Justice] relating to an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5624 14
Pursuant to its regulations, the Board determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. His transfer fitness report from RS Harrisburg, for 1 January to 13 July 2013 (copy at enclosure (1)), was fully favorable, even though the reporting senior, the Commanding Officer (CO), RS Harrisburg, requested Petitioner’s RFC on 12 April 2013, and the reviewing officer, the CO, First Marine Corps District, favorably endorsed the request on 26...