DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE RGAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-24596
TUR
Docket No: 3058-13
9 September 2014
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
ee a, os co ne
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: } DD Form 149 with attachments
} Case summary with attachments
) Subject's naval record/cpD
) HOMC Military Justice Branch, Judge Advocate Division
. {JAM} memo dated 2MAY14
{5) HOMC Manpower Information Quality Assurance, Manpower
information Systems Division (MIQ) memo dated 4J70N14
ae
BW hs H
1. Pursuant te the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an
enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed énclosure (1) with”
this Board requesting that her record be corrected by removing
derogatory material, specifically, an administrative remarks
(page 11) entry dated 24 April 2007, which reflects that she was
counselled regarding fraternization.
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Bey, Clemmons, and Zsalman,
reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 12
August 2014 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the
partial 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. In addition, the
Board considered the advisory opinions (AO) provided by
Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC).JAM and MIQ, copies of which are
_attached as enclosures (4) and {5}. a -
3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining
to Petitioner's allegations’ of error and injustice finds as
£
ollows:
Ge Before applying t to this Board, Petitioner axhaueeed all
administrative remedies available under existing law and
requlations within the Department of the Navy.
- -b. Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner.
c. Petitioner's record. contains a page 11 entry dated 24
' April 2007, which reflects, in part, that she was the subject of
TOR
Docket No: 9058-13
an investigation because of her “rumored” inappropriate
adulterous relationship with a married Chief Warrant Officer
(CWO).
d. In the AO from HOMC JAM (enclosure (4)), it was
recommended that the page 11 entry remain in the record, but it
should be redacted by removing all references to an adulterous
affair with a CWO, and the investigation which resulted from this
information. The AO states, in part, that as written, the
foregoing information is not authorized to be filed in the record
as counselling, and therefore should be removed from her OMPF
and/or Electronic Service Record {ESR}. The AO from HOMC MIO
concurs with the foregoing recommendation.
e. Although Petitioner requested that the entire page 11 be
removed, she only objected to the language which the JAM AO
recommends redacting.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of ail the evidence of record, and
especially in light of the AOs, the Board finds the existence of
an error and injustice warranting partial corrective action. In
this regard, the Board concludes that the page 11, although
incorrectly written, should remain in the record but be redacted
by removing all references regarding an inappropriate
relationship with a “married” CWO and the investigation regarding
the inappropriate relationship. The Board concludes that the
CWO’s marital status should not be revealed in her page 11
because it implies she may have committed adultery. In view of
the foregoing, the Board directs the following corrective action.
RECOMMENDATION :
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by redacting
the administrative remarks (page 11) entry dated 24 April 2007 by
totally obliterating the following verbiage:
(1) The word “married” which indicates the CWO's marital
status.
(2) All references regarding the investigation: “This
command ordered an investigation after rumors of an adulterous
affair began to adversely affect morale and productivity. An
investigating officer conducted the investigation and concluded
the following: Investigating Officer Opinions: There was an
inappropriate relationship between you and a Chief Warrant
Officer 3. The inappropriate relationship between you and the
TOR
Docket No: 9058-13
Chief Warrant Officer was probably sexual. The relationship that
you had with a Chief Warrant officer in this command did not
respect the differences in rank. However, it would cost the
government a great deal of time and money to attempt to prove
conclusively that this inappropriate relationship was sexual in
nature. For these reasons, you misconduct is being handled
administratively with this page 11."
(3) The appearance of a formal reprimand: “Instead, you
have let down your entire chain of command. This type of conduct
will not be tolerated.” :
b. That any and all 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.
d. That no further relief be granted.
4. Tt is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s
review and deliberations, and that the foregoing 1s a true and
complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled
matter.
BRIAN J. GEORGE |
Recorder
ROBERT J. O’NETLL
Executive Director
L iY
Reviewed and approved: 4 Winbe (0 “|
ROBERT L. WOODS
Assistant General Counsel
3 (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
1000 Navy Pentagon, Rm 40548
Washington, DC 20350-1000
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9019 13
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that her record be corrected by removing derogatory material (nonjudicial punishment (NJP), administrative remarks (Page 11) counselling, et¢.) As a result, she did not return to her duty station until late afternoon on 17 August 2012. f. Enclosure (4), an AO from the HOMC Military Justice Branch, Judge advocate Division, regarding Petitioner’s...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8365 13
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his naval record be corrected by removing any and all derogatory material regarding. e. An AO received from the HQOMC Military Justice Branch, Judge Advocate Division (JAM), enclosure (5), regarding Petitioner’s request to remove the NJP, page 11, and all related references thereto, recommended relief be granted because he self-reported that he...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5809 13
MIQ did not address the entries dated 23 May or 17 July 2012. c. In enclosure (3), JAM, the HOMC Judge Advocate Division, Military Justice Branch commented to the effect that all the entries at issue should be removed, because the entries dated 23 January, 23 May and 17 July 2012 were improperly backdated, and the entries dated 20 January and 23 March 2012 were issued after Petitioner should have been promoted on 1 May 2011. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing - the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9253 13
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his naval record be corrected by removing an erroneously filed administrative remarks (page 11) entry dated 20 December 2012 regarding his disobeying a lawful order. c. Petitioner’s record contains a page 11 entry dated 20 December 2012, which reflects that he was counselled concerning deficiencies in his performance, specifically, failure to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11866 14
c. The page 11 entry at issue counsels Petitioner for “Violation of the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice] Article 92 by involving yourself in an inappropriate relationship with the spouse of another service member.” d. Enclosure (3) shows that the PERB basis for removing the contested fitness report included a finding that the page 11 entry in question, which was cited in the fitness report, “was not substantiated.” e. In the advisory opinion at enclosure (4), the HOMC office with...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1145 14
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board, requesting that his naval record be corrected by removing any and all derogatory material regarding the nonjudicial punishment (NUP) imposed on 31 July 2007 and the fitness report (FITREP) for the period from 16 December 2006 to 31 July 2007, which references the NUP, from both his official military personnel file (OMPF) and the Marine Corps Total Force System...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1275 14
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his record be corrected by removing derogatory material, specifically, an administrative remarks {page 11) entry dated 6 January 2009 which incorrectly reflects that he was issued a traffic citation for failure to obey a stop sign. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the AO and the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7352 13
The Board, consisting of Mr. Bey, Mr. Hedrick, and Ms. Wilcher, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 10 June 2014 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. , d. In the AO frem HOMC MIQ (enclosure (4)), it was recommended that the administrative ‘remarks entry be removed from all records, (i.e., the Marine Corps Total: Force System (MCTFS), Official Military Personnel...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9085 13
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Marine Corps, applied to this Board requesting removal of derogatory material from his naval record, specifically, two administrative remarks (page 11) entries dated 28 August and 1 September 2011, regarding his civil involvement charge of driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol. The Board, consisting of Mr. Dixit, Mr. Sproul, and Ms. White-Olsen, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0271 14
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his naval record be corrected by removing any and all derogatory material regarding the nonjudicial punishment (NUP) imposed on 27 April 2010 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). e. Enclosure (4), an advisory opinion from HOMC Military Justice Branch, Judge Advocate Division (JAM) regarding Petitioner's request to remove the NJP...