DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No. 5751-15 

MAY 2 01016 


This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552. 
Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of l imitations §ind consider your case on i ts merits. A three-member panel of t he Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your appl i cation on 18 March 2016. 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, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in January 2005. In 2009, while serving onboard the111111111 you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) at Admiral's Mast for violation of the Navy's Fraternization Policy and for adultery as a result of your intimate relationship with the executive officer of your command. You appe~led the NJP which was d~nied by Commander, Naval Air Forces on 27 May 2009. Ultimately, you were detached for cause and recommended to show cause for retention. On 31 January 2010, you were separated for misconduct with a General characterization of service. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve an Honorabl e characterization of service and a change to the narrative reason for separation. You contend that Secretarial Authority or Disability are appropriate in light of the circumstances of your case. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. First, the Board determined that your characterization of service is appropriate. You were found guil ty for two serious offenses which warranted the lower characterization. The Board was not convinced by 
your argument that you were a victim of sexual assault relying on your own statement to crimina l investigators that shows a pattern of consensual sex with a married su over a period of t wo months that included sex onboard Based on the seriousness of the offenses, the Board considered you fortunate to receive a General characteri zation of service. Second, the Board also determined that your narrative reason for separation is appropriate. As a servi ce member processed for misconduct, your misconduct processing would have superseded any disability processing. So t he fact you were provisionally diagnosed with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder {PTSD) after you committed your misconduct, would not have charige the basis for your discharge. The Board concluded that even if t here was evidence that you were unfit for continued naval service as a result of your PTSD, you were properly processed for misconduct. Additionally, the Board found no reason to change your nar rative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. As discussed earlier, the Board felt that you were responsible for your misconduct and not a victim of sexual assault. They opined that you likely received the benefit of mitigation for reporting t he misconduct that led to your separation when you were issued a General characterization of service. Finall y, you raise the all egation of reprisal as a Whistleblower. Neither the Whistleblower statute or the military regulations· immunize milit ary members from responsibil ity for their own wrongdoing associated with the information contained in a protected communication. 
Therefore, the Board found that you were properly punished for your misconduct and the Navy did not reprise against you. Accordingly, the Board was unable to find an error or injustice warr anting a correction to your record and denied your application. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 

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 submission of new evidence within one year .from the date of the Board's decision. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. In this regard, i t is i mportant to keep in mind that a presumption of regularit y 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, 
. -.. . ., 
Executive Director 
2