DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

JSR

Re ele Re RTS AIM CMA a
PN ke a ae

2 March 2015

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

       

Se ee ee ——
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

Enel: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 1 Apr 14 w/attachments
(2) MCRC memo dtd 5 Dec 14
(3) Subject’s naval record

1. 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 his relief for cause (RFC) from recruiting duty at
Recruiting Station (RS) Harrisburg be removed and that he be
awarded the Marine Corps Recruiting Ribbon (MCRR) for his
service there. Documentation of the RFC does not appear in
Petitioner's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), however,
the entire RFC package is on file in the Headquarters Marine
Corps (HOMC) Total Force Retention System (TFRS). A copy of
that package*is at Tab A. Petitioner also impliedly requested
restoring his additional military occupational specialty (AMOS)
B411 (recruiter), setting aside the termination of his special
duty assignment (SDA) pay, and removing from his data in the
Marine Corps Total Force System (MCTFS) the draw case code “AO”
(punitive relief from SDA) .

>. The Board, consisting of Ms. McCain and Messrs. O'Neill and
Relyea, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice
on 2 March 2015. Pursuant to its regulations, the Board
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 which were available under existing law
and regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b. Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner.

c. On the basis of the findings and recommendations of a
command investigation {enclosure (2) to the request for RFC at
Tab A), Petitioner, a staff sergeant (pay grade E-6), was
relieved for cause from recruiting duty at RS Harrisburg and
subjected to nonjudicial punishment (NJP) proceedings on the
ground that he had failed to report the sexual harassment of
multiple applicants and recruiting poolees by a Gunnery Sergeant
(pay grade E-7) P---. Petitioner's RFC was requested on 12
April 2013, and HQMC approved it on 24 July 2013. The second
endorsement on the request for RFC directed that a page 11 entry
reflecting the RFC be entered in Petitioner's service record,
but no such entry appears in his OMPF. By reason of the RFC, he
was not awarded the MCRR, despite his having served for more
than the minimum required 30-months at RS Harrisburg; his. 8411
MOS was voided; his SDA pay was terminated; and he was assigned
the “AO” draw case code.

a. At his NIP proceedings conducted on 31 May 2013, it was
determined that he did not warrant punishment. 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 April 2013.

e. With his application at enclosure (1), Petitioner
provided a copy of the letter dated 3 July 2013 submitted by the
CO, First Marine Corps District to the Commanding General (CG),
Marine Corps Recruiting Command (MCRC) via the CG, Marine Corps
Recruit Depot/Eastern Recruiting Region, Subject: Request to
Rescind [RFC] Package in Case of [Petitioner]. Paragraph 3 of
this letter stated the following:

While inappropriate for a Staff Sergeant to
continuously counsel a Gunnery Sergeant,
{Petitioner] had the moral courage to
confront Gunnery Sergeant P--- and instruct
him to stop [his misconduct]. [Petitioner]
also continued to inform the ARI [Assistant
Recruiter Instructor] about Gunnery Sergeant
P---‘’s misconduct. The ARI was the senior

2
individual in this circumstance that did not
act on the misconduct reported. [Petitioner]
followed the proper reporting chain of
command when he reported Gunnery Sergeant
P---'s misconduct, therefore I do not feel
his [RFC] should continue to be processed.

Petitioner’s application also included a copy of the CG, Marine
Corps Recruit Depot/Eastern Recruiting Region endorsement dated
10 July 2013 on the request to rescind Petitioner’s RFC, which
disapproved the request, stating that “Once [the ARI] was
notified of the alleged misconduct and no corrective action was
taken, it was a reasonable expectation that a Staff
Non-Commissioned Officer in the Marine Corps would persist in
utilizing their chain of command until appropriate action had
been taken,”

f. Petitioner contends the relief he requested should be
granted because his fitness report reflects he had a successful
recruiting tour, he completed more than the 30 months required
for the MCRR, and he did not receive NJP. “or any other negative
or punitive paper work [sic] .”

g. In enclosure (2), the MCRC has commented to the effect
that Petitioner's application should be denied, because the RFC
was proper in accordance with applicable directives and the
responsibilities of a Marine assigned to recruiting duty, it was
based on a thorough command investigation, and “the NUP result
must be evaluated independent from the administrative RFC result
in order to determine what is right for the Marine and the
Marine Corps.”

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
notwithstanding enclosure (2), the Board finds an injustice
warranting the requested relief. Specifically, the Board finds
that the contested RFC was unwarranted. In this regard, the
Board particularly notes that Petitioner did notify the ARI of

Gunnery Sergeant P---'s misconduct, and in the Board’s view, it
was not incumbent on him to do more; he did confront Gunnery
Sergeant P--- about his misconduct, which did show courage as

Petitioner wag junior to him; Petitioner’s fitness report for
the pertinent period contained nothing derogatory; his NJP
proceedings resulted in no punishment being awarded; and the CO,
First Marine Corps District, who had initially favorably
endorsed the request for Petitioner’s RFC, made a compelling
case for rescinding it. In view of the above, the Board
recommends the following corrective action:

3
RECOMMENDATION :

a. That all documentation of Petitioner's RFC from
recruiting duty at RS Harrisburg be removed from TFRS.

b. That he be awarded the MCRR for his service at RS
Harrisburg.

c. That his naval record be corrected to show his $411 AMOS
was not voided, but has remained in effect continuously since it
was assigned.

d. That his record be corrected further to show his SDA pay
was not terminated by reason of his RFC, but remained in effect
until his transfer from RS Harrisburg on 13 July 2013.

e. That his MCTFS data be corrected by removing the “AO”
draw case code.

f. 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 be added to the record in the future.

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.

JONATHAN §&. RUSKIN
Recorder

5. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your
review and action.

 

ROBERT J. O’NEILL

Reviewed and approved

Weal —3[l#]'s
ROBERT L. WOODS
Assistant General Counsel
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
4000 Navy Pentagon, Rm 4D548 4

Washington, DC 20350-1000