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

Docket No: 5597-18/ 10702-16 
JAN 18 2019 

Dear 

Pursuant to Title 10 ofthe United States Code, Section 1552, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR or Board) thoroughly reviewed your application for correction of your record and forwarded its recommendation to deny all relief to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) (ASN(M&RA)) per SECNAVINST 5420.193, Enclosure (1), Section 6e(2), because the petition involves records previously reviewed and acted upon by the ASN(M&RA) wherein the operative facts remain substantially the same. 

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 August 2018, 13 November 2018, and 29 November 2018. 1 The names and votes ofthe members ofthe 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 record; applicable statutes, regulations, and policies; the Headquarters, Marine Corps (HQMC), Military Personnel Law Branch (JPL) advisory opinion (AO) dated 20 December 2017; and your rebuttal dated 30 July 2018. 

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

Background 

You commissioned as an officer in the Marine Corps on 15 December 1995. You allegedly committed sexual misconduct with a subordinate female Marine corporal in early April 1 The same Board, comprised ofthe same three members, sat in executive session on these three nonconsecutive days to afford the panel adequate opportunity to read the complete, voluminous record, and to read and thoroughly consider Petitioner's lengthy application, voluminous supporting materials, and numerous allegations of error and injustice. The Board convened on 30 August 2018, recessed that day, reconvened on 13 November 2018 and recessed again that day, and, finally reconvened and adjourned on 29 November 2018. 2011 and a subordinate female Marine captain in September 2012. The 2012 incident was reported first and the earlier incident of April 2011 was-reported in 2014. Each is discussed below in the order they were reported. 
Incident with the Captain . You and several officers had traveled to drinking with several ofthese officers, including a female Marine captain for whom you were the reporting senior and flight instructor. The female captain alleged that, due to feeling nauseated and heavily intoxicated, she left the club and hailed a taxi at 0130. Having followed her outside, you asked to split the taxi ride back to the hotel aboard 

Upon return to the hotel and your adjacent rooms, the captain alleged you asked if she had any beers and she responded that she had one in her room she would bring to you. She alleged you followed her into the room and refused to leave until she physically pushed you out ofthe room. The female captain alleged she awoke at approximately 0700 to the "feel of someone kissing and rubbing her back while pulling her shirt upward and felt her bra strap being unhooked." She claimed to have run straight to the bathroom. Upon exiting the bathroom, she stated she saw you lying in her bed. You initially refused to leave but eventually did when she opened the door and told you to leave. On 24 September 2012, the captain made a restricted report to a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC) and later made the report unrestricted on 27 September 2012. On 4 April 2013, the Commanding General (CG), notified you of his intent to impose nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for alleged violations of Article 92 (violation of a general regulation) and Article 133 (conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman) ofthe Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice (UCMJ). On 9 April 2013, you accepted NJP and did not demand trial by court-martial. On 13 April 2013, you were found guilty and were awarded a Punitive Letter of Reprimand (PLOR) and forfeiture ofpay, which was suspended for six months. You did not appeal the PLOR or submit a statement in response. 

On 10 June 2013, the CG, documented the NJP in a Report of NJP and recommended you be required to show cause for retention. You acknowledged receipt and did not submit any matters in response. By letter dated 11 June 2013, the Commander, notified you ofthe requirement to show cause for retention at a Board of Inquiry (BOI) for substandard performance of duty and misconduct, or moral or professional dereliction. The specific bases for separation were 1) failure to demonstrate acceptable qualities of leadership required of an officer in your grade, 2) failure to conform to prescribed standards of dress, weight, personal appearance, or military deportment, and 3) commission of a military or civilian offense which could be punished by confinement for six months or more. 


On 13 September 2013, the BOI substantiated substandard performance of duty and misconduct, or moral or professional dereliction for your failure to demonstrate acceptable qualities of leadership required of an officer in your grade and for your commission of a military or civilian offense which could be punished by confinement for six months. The BOI only substantiated the latter specific basis for a violation of Article 92 for fraternizing with the captain. The BOI did not substantiate the alleged violation ofArticles 133. The BOI did not consider, nor make a finding regarding, your alleged failures to conform to prescribed standards of dress, weight, personal appearance, or military deportment, despite the BOI notification from the alternate show cause authority including it as a specific basis for separation. The BOI recommended retention. The senior member reported the BOI's findings and recommendation in a Report of the BOI on 15 November 2013. 

Incident with the Corporal 

From 30 March 2011 to 10 April 2011, you conducted training at Marine Corps. Several enlisted Marines from the squadron, including the female corporal, were also in for the training. The female corporal alleged she was out at a bar with two other corporals one night in.  The two other corporals wanted to return to the hotel so she stayed out with you and another major. The corporal said she drank heavily and had no memory of returning to the hotel. She alleged that her next memory was waking in her bed to find you having sexual intercourse with her from behind. She claimed she told you to stop, but you "finished" then left the room. She admitted to engaging in consensual sexual intercourse with you several days afterwards in her hotel room. 

The female corporal made a restricted report to a SARC on 20 September 2013 and made the report unrestricted on 15 April 2014. On 15 October 2014, charges were preferred against you based on the alleged incident with the corporal, as well as the previous, unrelated incident involving the captain. The charges preferred alleged violations of Articles 120 (aggravated sexual assault of the corporal and abusive sexual contact of the captain), 133 (conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman for the aggravated sexual assault ofthe corporal, fraternization and adultery with the corporal, abusive sexual contact of the captain, and unlawful entry ofthe captain's hotel room) and 134 (fraternization with the corporal, unlawful entry ofthe captain's hotel room, and adultery with the corporal) of the UCMJ. 

On 22 December 2014, an Article 32, UCMJ, investigation was completed. The investigating officer (IO) concluded the Government (GOVT) presented sufficient evidence to conclude there was probable cause to believe you committed the offenses charged, with the exception ofthe specification alleging abusive sexual contact of the female captain. 

On 22 January 2015, despite the IO's recommendation, the all the charges to a general court-martial (GCM). A pre-trial agreement (PTA) was approved on 5 March 2015 in which you agreed to accept NJP for fraternization and adultery with the female corporal in violation of Articles 133 and 134, UCMJ, provided the withdraw the charges from the GCM and dismiss them without prejudice upon the imposition of NJP. 

On 27 March 2015, the CG, notified you of his intent to impose NJP for your alleged violations of UCMJ Articles 133 and 134. Per the PTA, you agreed to accept NJP and did not demand trial by court-martial. You were found guilty of violating Articles 133 and 134 at NJP on 19 April 2015 and awarded a PLOR and forfeiture ofpay, which was suspended for six months. On 19 April 2015, the CG also documented your NJP in a Report ofNJP. 

On 23 April 2015, through counsel, you appealed the NJP and appealed the PLOR on 24 April 2015. In the appeals, which were substantially similar, you claimed the punishment was unjust and requested it be set aside. You also contended the evidence was insufficient to support the findings of guilt and that the CG did not consider your defense at the NJP hearing because a predetermined outcome had been unlawfully influenced by the as evidenced by the order to show cause for retention at a BOI that was directed by the 17 days before the NJP hearing and by the immediate serving of the PLOR on 1 May 2015. 

On 2 April 2015, the  directed that you be required to show cause for retention at a BOI for substandard performance of duty and misconduct, or moral or professional dereliction. The specific bases for separation alleged in the notification were your 1) failure to demonstrate acceptable qualities of leadership required ofan officer of your grade, 2) failure to properly discharge duties expected of an officer of your grade and experience, and 3) commission ofa military or civilian offense which could be punished by confinement for six months or more. The notification did not specify the specific military or civilian offenses you were alleged to have committed, but, instead referenced the Article 32, UCMJ, investigation report as detailing the factual bases for the show cause order.

On 1 June 2015, the BOI substantiated substandard performance of duty and misconduct, or moral or professional dereliction. The BOI found misconduct or moral or professional dereliction only for your violation of Articles 133 and 134 for fraternization; however, the BOI did not substantiate adultery or misconduct related to sexual assault. The BOI recommended separation with a general (under honorable conditions) (GEN) characterization of service. On 8 July 2015, the senior member reported the BOI's findings and recommendations in a Report of the BOI. On 30 July 2015, through counsel, you submitted matters in response to the Report of the BOI alleging errors and requesting to be retained. 

After considering your matters and the advice ofhis Staff Judge Advocate, in his endorsement forwarding the Report ofthe BOI, found your characterization of service. On 16 November 2015, in his written recommendation to the Assistant Secretary ofthe Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASN (M&RA)), the Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (DC (M&RA)) expressly addressed the allegations oferror raised in your matters, finding them to be without merit or harmless. He recommended separation with a GEN characterization of service. On 10 December 2015, the acting ASN (M&RA) approved the recommendation. On 28 December 2015, adverse materials concerning your second NJP and BOI were entered into your Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). On 10 January 2016, you were separated for misconduct with a GEN characterization ofservice. 

On 20 November 2016, you petitioned this Board requesting correction of your naval record. (NR20160010702). In accordance with Board procedure, your petition was forwarded to Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) for their review and comment. Your submission was returned to the Board on 20 December 2017, and the HQMC AO was forwarded to you for review and comment. Your original case file was misplaced while at HQMC but a new copy was subsequently provided by your counsel. On 21 May 2018, your case was administratively closed in order to allow sufficient time for you to submit a rebuttal statement to the AO. Upon submission ofthe rebuttal statement, your case was reopened as NR20180005597. Your entire petition was considered by a Board panel on 30 August 2018, 13 November 2018, and 29 November 2018. 

Relief Requested 

In your 20 November 2016 DD Form 149, you requested the following relief: 

(1) Removal of all mention of and action stemming from the 19 April 2015 NJP; 

(2) Removal of all mention and action stemming from the I June 2015 BOI; 

(3) Constructive reinstatement with sufficient time to achieve retirement or, in the alternative, reinstatement to active duty. 

Board Consideration of Errors and Injustices 

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 August 2018, 13 November 2018, and 29 November 2018. (The names and votes of the members ofthe 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 ofthis Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour request, together with all material submitted in support thereof; your official military personnel file; and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the AO furnished by HQMC (JPL) dated 20 December 2017, as well as your rebuttal to that AO received on 30 July 2018. 

After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

NJP of 19 April 2015 

(1) You contend the record is in error or unjust because the 19 April 2015 NJP was tainted by several errors. After consideration of each contention and argument, the Board determined there was no basis to disturb the NJP findings. 

a. You contend the evidence did not meet the preponderance of the evidence standard. Specifically, you contend the complaining witness's statements were uncorroborated, inconsistent, and motivated by her need to be seen as a "victim" because she was being separated from the Marine Corps without full benefits. You further contend the witness was incredible and the allegations were extraordinarily stale since they were greater than three years old. You also contend the allegations were made by the complaining witness when she was being processed for separation due to misconduct, and she was, for all intents and purposes, "grasping at straws" to save the characterization of her discharge. Lastly, in your rebuttal statement, you contend the corporal made the claim but didn't have to provide any evidence, but you have been expected to prove that it didn't happen, which is impossible, especially when you have been denied the ability to present matters in defense at NJP. 

The Board concurred substantially with the AO and found the evidence of record and the information you provided did not support a finding ofmaterial error or injustice. The Board concurred with the AO and determined the CG's decision was sufficiently supported by the Article 32 IO's report and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) Report of Investigation, both of which amply supported the corporal's statements. The IO's report included a summary of the sworn testimony of the corporal detailing her encounters with you and a summary of the sworn testimony of a witness detailing observations of interactions between yourself and the corporal which significantly corroborated her account. The NCIS report included the corporal's sworn statement, evidence you were at the same hotel, and the results of an interview with another corporal who witnessed you and the female corporal drinking poolside and to whom the female corporal confided. 

The Board further concurred with the AO and determined the evidence did not support your contention that the corporal's statements were stale, false, and fabricated. The Board also considered your rebuttal argument that she threatened to "take someone down with her." The Board concluded the evidence did not persuasively show the statements were so stale and incredible as to render them insufficient to prove, niore likely than not, that you fraternized and engaged in adultery with the corporal. The Board also determined the evidence was insufficient to show the corporal fabricated the allegation in order to "take someone down with her." 


The Board also considered, but was not persuaded by, your rebuttal argument that the poolside activity was the only reasonable basis for fraternization yet no one else was charged or alleged to have engaged in fraternization. The Board also considered your contention that you were not allowed to address the actual circumstances at the NJP because, when you attempted to present matters in defense, the CG became "annoyed, at best, and threatened to nullify" the PTA and send it back to GCM. The Board determined, after considering all the evidence and specifically the NJP transcript, you were not denied the ability to present matters in defense at the NJP. After consideration ofeach contention and argument, the Board determined the preponderance of the evidence standard was met, and there was no basis to disturb the NJP findings. 

b. You contend the NJP authority was predisposed to find misconduct. You specifically contend the NJP authority used the session solely to impose punishment and did not objectively weigh the facts, as reflected in his "tenor, tone, and lack ofjudicial temperament." · As proof, you contend that when the evidence was presented to the BOI members, they did not substantiate the adultery allegations. You further contend that, at one point, the NJP authority was so irritated at you for presenting any defense, he threatened to stop the NJP and refer the charges to GCM. In rebuttal to the AO, you stated "his message was clear: 'keep presenting matters of defense, and I will void the PTA and you will go to GCM. 

The Board determined the evidence was insufficient to support your contention the NJP authority was predisposed to a finding of guilt. Relying upon the AO and the review of the NJP transcript, the Board determined the NJP authority considered all the evidence before determining guilt. The Board noted the uninterrupted portion of your counsel's presentation in your defense and the statement made by the NJP authority that "he was close to sending it that way" after asking you if you wanted to accept NJP or go to a GCM and determined it did not reflect bias, a lack of objectivity, a lack ofjudicial temperament, or a predetermined outcome. Additionally, the Board concurred with the AO's position that "inconsistent findings by two separate adjudicatory bodies" do not render the NJP authority's findings "legally infirm or insufficiently supported." 

After consideration of each contention and argument, the Board determined the NJP authority was not predisposed to find misconduct, and there was no basis to disturb the NJP findings. 

c. You contend undue command influence led the NJP authority to substantiate misconduct. Specifically, you contend the NJP authority was made privy to the fact that the Show Cause Authority had already decided to notify you of his decision to require you to show cause. This unlawful command influence caused the NJP authority to be predisposed to find misconduct since his senior commander had already substantiated misconduct. As evidence, you point out the date of the show cause determination, 2 April 2015, which was 17 days before the NJP hearing and the presentation ofthe PLOR and Report ofNJP immediately upon conclusion of the NJP hearing. 

The Board, relying upon the AO, determined your unlawful command influence claim is not factually supported. The NJP authority denied any knowledge ofthe 2 April 2015 show cause decision by the Show Cause authority when he imposed NJP, and the Show Cause authority denied speaking with the NJP authority prior to the hearing. Additionally, the Board noted NJP is neither required nor expected for a show cause determination. In this case, the Board noted the Show Cause authority based his show cause decision on the Article 32 IO's report. Lastly, the Board concluded that drafting a PLOR the same day as the NJP is not a reflection ofbias, predisposition, predetermination, or unlawful command influence. The Board also considered, but was not convinced by, your argument in rebuttal that the SJA's "good staff work" was not believable. 

After consideration ofeach contention and argument, the Board determined unlawful command influence did not lead the NJP authority to substantiate misconduct, and there was no basis to disturb the NJP findings. 

d. You contend the NJP should be void because you did not knowingly waive the two-year statute oflimitations (SOL). Specifically, you note the SOL for NJP is two years, and there is nothing in the record indicating you were informed ofor knowingly waived the SOL. 

The Board, relying upon the AO's discussion regarding how the two-year SOL may be waived as part of a PTA to avoid referral to trial by court-martial, determined your contention was without merit. The Board noted MCO P5800.16A w/CH 1-7 (LEGADMINMAN) provides that an accused may "affirmatively agree to accept NJP in lieu of trial by court-martial for offenses that are over two years old, but within the five-year court-martial SOL." In such cases, the accused must knowingly and intelligently waive any claim that punishment is barred by the SOL, and you have provided insufficient evidence to support your contention that you did not knowingly waive the two-year SOL. The Board also noted you were represented by experienced counsel throughout PTA negotiations and at your NJP hearing. In rebuttal, you contend the GOVT has an affirmative obligation to demonstrate a knowing and intelligent waiver and failed to do so by memorializing the waiver in the PTA. The Board, relying upon the GOVT's presumption of regularity, concluded there was insufficient evidence to support your claim. Moreover, the LEGADMINMAN provides that it is merely "advisable" (not required) to memorialize such waiver in a PTA or similar document. 

After consideration of each contention and argument, the Board determined the SOL was knowingly waived, and there was no basis to disturb the NJP findings. 

BOI of 1 June 2015 

(2) You contend the record is in error or unjust because your 1 June 2015 BOI and the post-BO I processing of your involuntary separation were tainted by several errors. After consideration of each contention and argument, the Board determined there was no basis to disturb the BOI findings. 

a. You contend the BOI's appointing order was ambiguous and failed to specify any particular military or civilian offense. Specifically, you contend you were not put on notice as to what you would be required to defend against because relating back to the Article 32 IO report was insufficient notice. Absent specificity, you contend the recorder, a company grade or junior field officer, is making executive decisions regarding your career and not the Show Cause authority. Additionally, you contend the Show Cause authority abdicated his role when he allowed the BOI members and recorder to determine what portions ofthe Article 32 IO's report merit mention. Lastly, you contend specificity in the appointing order is a necessity in order to ensure the majority ofthe BOI members agree on the same act or omission and to prevent the door being left open for presentation of irrelevant and. improper evidence. 

The Board concurred with the AO and determined the show cause notification complied with the requirements of SECNA VINST 1920.6c; no greater specificity was required. The Board, noting the stated reference only "requires notification ofthe reasons for discharge, not the evidence utilized to support these reasons" or the particular acts of omissions evidencing such reasons, determined the show cause notification was not inadequate. 

After consideration ofeach contention and argument, the Board determined the BOI appointing order was not ambiguous, and there was no basis to disturb the BOI findings. 

b. You contend the BOI considered extraneous evidence which should have been excluded because evidence from a prior BOI cannot be used as evidence in a subsequent BOI when determining whether performance was substandard or misconduct occurred. You contend the GOVT engaged in a bait-and-switch during the hearing when the female captain, who was the complaining witness in the first BOI, testified during the GOVT's case in chief. You further contend the GOVT was "attempting to get a second bite at the apple by presenting evidence of allegations that fell flat" during the first BOI. 

The Board concurred with the AO and concluded SECNA VINST 1920.6c does not bar a subsequent BO I's consideration of evidence from a previous board but only prohibits "processing" a respondent for separation "solely because ofperformance or conduct which was the subject of previous proceedings." 

The Board also concurred with the AO's discussion regarding your contention that the BOI erred in considering "irrelevant" and improper "propensity" evidence of your alleged sexual misconduct. The Board noted the Military Rules of Evidence do not apply at a BOI but "reasonable restrictions as to relevance" may be applied, and it determined the propensity evidence was not irrelevant but was unquestionably relevant because it "has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable that it would be without the evidence" and because the "fact is of consequence in determining the action." Additionally, the Board concurred with the AO and determined you relied upon the same evidence to defend against what you viewed as implicit allegations of sexual assault and to impeach all of the testimony before the BOI of the female corporal and captain and undermine the credibility of their allegations. 

After consideration ofeach contention and argument, the Board determined the evidence was not extraneous, irrelevant or improper propensity evidence, and there was no basis to disturb the BOI findings. 

c. You contend the findings worksheet was ambiguous as to findings. Specifically, in paragraph 3, you contend there is no specificity as to what your failure was in either ofthe substandard performance of duty sections. You further contend there is no way to determine whether the BOI members agreed by a majority vote that any particular commission or omission was a failure. Additionally, you contend there is nothing enumerated in the worksheet as to what conduct is alleged to be "unbecoming an officer and gentleman." You further contend the recommendation section ofthe worksheet is ambiguous because there's nothing that ensures at least two of the three BOI members were voting for separation based on the same justification, which is required. 

The Board, relying upon the AO, found your contentions lacked merit. A BOI is required to determine, by majority vote and based on the evidence presented, a finding on each ofthe reasons for separation specified. Neither determination requires a specific enumeration of the alleged failure and/or the specific misconduct. Even assuming error, the Board determined such error was harmless in the circumstances because you were not prejudiced. Even if the worksheet was erroneously ambiguous, the Report ofthe BOI clarified that all ofthe findings were based only upon your fraternization. 

After consideration of each contention and argument, the Board determined the findings worksheet was not ambiguous, and there was no basis to disturb the BOI findings. 

d. You contend the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) misstated the facts to the Secretary ofthe Navy (SECNAV), which created a misleading circumstance for the SECNAV that violated your rights. You specifically noted CMC's statement that the BOI substantiated fraternization and adultery when there was no finding of adultery in either BOI. Additionally, you contend the CMC's letter writer is a "biased and predisposed advocate who is wrong on the law on more than one occasion." You further contend that the CMC's repeated dropping ofthe term "allegation" and "alleges" confuses the reader into thinking more happened than what was substantiated. You point to the use of "inexplicably" in footnote 2 as clear evidence of bias and predisposition because it substitutes his purportedly non-contextual opinions for those who were present. Lastly, you contend CMC is just plain wrong on the law regarding the SOL and also when he attempts to mitigate the lack of specificity. You also contend CMC did not rebut the alleged deficiencies that occurred during the second BOI. 

The Board, relying upon the AO, determined the evidence was insufficient to prove material error or injustice. The Board concurred with the AO and determined you provided no substantial evidence to support your claim of"bias" and predisposition. The Board also concurred with the AO's discussion regarding the SOL and specificity and determined the CMC was not "just plain wrong on the law." The Board also determined the CMC, although not required to address each legal error, did address the alleged errors. 


The Board noted the CMC inaccurately stated the BOI substantiated both fraternization and adultery but concluded the error was harmless because the CMC's written recommendation had elsewhere expressly and accurately noted the BOI only substantiated fraternization. The Board also noted the CMC confirmed that the Assistant Secretary ofthe Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASN (M&RA)) had been accurately briefed regarding the BOI's findings before approving the recommended separation and characterization. 

After consideration of each contention and argument, the Board determined the misstatement and alleged deficiencies in CMC's letter to SECNAV did not mislead SECNAV or violate your rights, and there was no basis to disturb the BOI findings. 

Injustice and Inequity 

(3) You contend it was unjust to separate you for misconduct. After consideration of each contention and argument, the Board determined your separation was not unjust, and there was no basis to grant relief. 

a. You contend it was unjust to separate you for misconduct while you were on limited duty as a result of injuries and disabilities sustained while on active duty. The Board concurred with the AO and determined you provided insufficient evidence to support your claim, and, even with evidence, your discharge as the result ofrepeated misconduct does not "shock the sense ofjustice." 

b. You contend the recorder inflamed the passions ofthe BOI members by repeatedly referring to you as a "rapist" and by using the captain's testimony. The Board determined the terms and statement were not inflammatory. 

c. You contend your discharge was excessively severe due to your outstanding service record, 90% disability rating, family of four kids, destruction of your career, marred reputation, eviscerated retirement with just weeks to go, loss of medical benefits for life and transferrable education benefits which equates to hundreds of additional dollars a month for medical insurance and college costs. You further contend that, in the civilian community, if one is fired from a position, he does not lose his retirement fund. The Board considered all the presented evidence and your record, and after giving great consideration to your contentions­especially those regarding your family-determined separation was nonetheless warranted. 

Board Decision 

In summary, the Board unanimously voted to deny your request to remove your NJP of 19 April 2015 and/or your BOI of 1 June 2015 because there was no basis to disturb the findings. The Board also denied your request for constructive time which would allow you to attain retirement or reinstatement to active duty. 

The Board, having determined the evidence used in the 19 April 2015 NJP met the preponderance ofthe evidence standard, the NJP authority was not predisposed to find misconduct, undue command influence did not lead the NJP authority to substantiate misconduct, and the SOL was waived, concluded there was no basis to disturb the NJP findings. Additionally, the Board, having determined the BOI appointing order was not ambiguous, the BOI did not consider extraneous, irrelevant, or improper propensity evidence, and the findings worksheet was not ambiguous as to findings, concluded there was no basis to disturb the-BOI findings. The Board also determined the misstatement and alleged deficiencies in CMC's letter to SECNAV did not mislead SECNAV, violate your rights, or establish a basis to disturb the BOI findings. Lastly, the Board considered each ofyour arguments that the result was unjust and inequitable and determined your misconduct warranted separation. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption ofregularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction ofan official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely,