DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 3309-18                
Ref: Signature Date 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.  After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied. 

A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 May 2019.  The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.  Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board.  Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval records, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 

The Board carefully considered your request for the Field Naval Aviator Evaluation Board’s flight classification recommendation of B(1) -- Retention of right to wear the insignia, be changed to A(l) -- Retain in present duty assignment.  The Board also considered your request for restoration of flight pay with retroactive payment from 28 April 2017 to present. 

The Board considered your contentions that you did not demonstrate certain habits, character traits, emotional tendencies, lack of mental aptitude or motivation that made it questionable for you to continue in flying duties.  You argued that you did not pose any safety risk in flight, rather, you only displayed poor judgement.  You assert that your initial dishonesty was for fear of losing your flight pay that would have added more financial stress to an already stressed situation.  Additionally, you assert that your punishment had some racial overtone. 

The Board noted that, while you were serving as an aviation instructor, Training Air Wing FOUR, a command investigation (CI) was initiated due to allegations that a Navy training aircraft using an inappropriate call sign was flying near Houston, Texas, on 24 January 2017.  It was discovered that two separate aircraft used a call sign that constituted a disparaging political statement disrespectful to the President of the United States.  You were suspected of violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 88 (contempt toward officials); Article 92 (failure to obey order or regulation; conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman); and Article 134 (service discrediting conduct).  

During the course of the CI, you repeatedly denied responsibility, under oath and in sworn statements, for programming the inappropriate call sign into the aircraft flight management systems.  However, after the CI was complete, and the findings of fact, opinions, and recommendations of the investigating officer were approved, you were informed by your commander that, based on the preponderance of the evidence, it was obvious that you were responsible for programming the call sign, and that it was his intent to issue you a Letter of Instruction.  Once confronted with the evidence, you admitted culpability in the matter. 

A Field Naval Aviator Evaluation Board was convened to conduct an appraisal of your individual flying skills, time to qualify relative to peers, trends, prior incidents, predictors, and any other applicable comments.  The commanding officer, VT-28, commented, in part, that you had been a sub-standard instructor pilot, and, although you possess acceptable airmanship and flying skills, you have had a trend of decision making and instructional errors.  Further, after continuing deficiencies in the areas of grade sheet administration, cross-country planning, runway duty officer professionalism, and an ejection seat safety violation, you were counseled by your executive officer on 5 August 2016.  Your performance seemed to improve after that date until the inappropriate call-sign incident and your untruthful statements.  Ultimately, the Field Naval Aviator Evaluation Board unanimously recommended that you be assigned a flight classification of B(1). 

In reaching its decision, the Board noted there were several statements noting good character traits and many of your fellow officers were surprised to learn that you were appearing before a Field Naval Aviator Evaluation Board.  Although one statement claimed you were behind your peer group with qualifications, and you were dealing with life stressors, you were considered a trusted aviator and respected among sailors.  However, the Board noted that, after you lied under oath on multiple occasions, coupled with other instances of poor judgement and violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, your commanding officer lost trust in your ability to execute the responsibility and duties of an instructor pilot, and that your exhibited habits and character traits were inconsistent with the ethos of your profession, despite the best efforts at remediation from the command.  The Board also noted that your lack of integrity, in effect, had cast unwarranted suspicion on fellow members of the command and potentially put their careers at risk.  Your admission came only after you were presented with overwhelming evidence against you.  The Board concluded that you have not shown by preponderance of evidence probable material error, substantive inaccuracy, or injustice warranting a change to your flight classification. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149.  New matters are those not previously presented to or considered by the Board.  In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.  Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely,