DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No. 6484-15 
HAl 2 O 2016 
Dear 


This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval ·record pursuant to t he provisions of 10 USC 1552. 
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Recor ds, sitting in executive sessi on, considered your application on 1 April 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 al l material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 


detachment. On 19 August 2011, you were involved in an incident involving a female Sail or where you were witnessed kissing the Sailor, 
while intoxicated by a l cohol, on two occasions in front of other Sailors on a liberty boat. That same weekend, you were involved in 
another incident involving a assigned to your Detachment where you were accused of pressuring him not to disclose the fraternization incident with the female Sailor to the Commanding Officer. As a result of these two incidents, non-judicial punishment (NJP) was imposed on you in September 2011 resul ting in the issuance of a punitive letter of reprimand. You did not appeal the 
NJP. Following your NJP, you were required to show cause for retention i n the Navy and elected a Board of Inquiry (BOI) . On 18 
July 2012, the BOI was convened and determined that you committed all three counts of misconduct for which NJP was previously imposed and that your performance was substandard. The BOI recommended you be separated from the Navy with an Honorable characterization of service. After consideration of the ev idence, including a letter of deficiency filed by your counsel, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved your separation on 31 January 2013. As · a result, you were discharged from the Navy on 31 March 2013. 
 
The Board carefully considered your arguments that your separ ation from the Navy was wrongful . Specifically, you allege that the BOI composition violated applicable regulations, t he BOI .relied upon perjured and incorrect testimony, the facts and evidence did not support your separation, and that you should have been referred to the Disabil ity Evaluation System and placed on the Permanent Disability Retirement List. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. Your first allegation involves the BOI composition and the command's failure to appoint a member from your competitive category. On your BOI, there was no member from the aviation community appointed as a member. In your letter of deficiency, you contend t hat Execut ive Officer, was an aviator and was available. SENAVINST 1920 . 6c Change 4 enclosure (8) Paragraph 4.c. states "For Navy cases, a BOI must have at least one member from the same competitive cat egory as the respondent. This i s especially important when considering an officer for substandard performance. However, in cases involving small competitive categories,· isolated geographic locations, or for reasons of operational necessity, competitive category membership may be waived by the convening authority if no suitabl e officer is reasonably available ." The· Navy's position was that no member from your competitive category was avail able for appoi ntment. The Board determined that the Navy's action were reasonable. SECNAVINST 1920.6C al lows for a waiver of this requirement when a suitable officer is not reasonably available. Your BOI occurred in a geographically isolated location where only one officer meeting t he competitive category requirement was s t ationed. However , that officer was the Executive Officer of t he installation. Your argument was that since the Executi ve Officer was present for duty, t hat means he was reasonably available to serve as a member. The Board disagreed with this reasoning. Executive Officers of naval installations historically have. demanding job requirements that are not conducive to an entire day of absence. So without additional evidence from you that showed the Executive Officer was authorized by his Commanding Officer to be away from his normal duties, the Board agreed with the Navy's determination that the Executive Officer was not reasonably available. The Board was also persuaded by the Navy's attempt to meet the competitive category requirement by assigning a member from a secondary competitive category. This convinced the Board that the Navy understood the requirement and made a genuine attempt to meet the spirit of the regulation despite qualifying for a waiver. 

You also argue that the BOI decisions and recommendations were based on false testimony. The Board did not agree with your argument, Due process requirements for BOis allow for Respondents to cross examine witnesses and present evidence. You were represented by exper ienced counsel who cross examined each government witness and presented evidence in support o f your case. You were given t he opportunity to discredit any testimony you felt was incorrect or misleading. The Board was unable to find evidence that you were prevented from exercising your due process rights during the proceedings. In addition, the Board determined that BOI members .were free to disregard any evidence or testimony that they determined was not credible. So the fact you disagreed with testimony provided by a particular witness did not invalidate the findings of the BOI in the opinion of the Board. service in the Navy and 
as a basis for error and injustice. You sub~tantiate you performance with character witness statements, testimony at the BOI, excellent performance evaluations, and distinguished personal awards. The Board agreed that your military ! performance was impressive. However, that fact does not make the Navy's decision to separate you incorrect. A single act of misconduct can be serious enough to warrant separation of a service member despite otherwise meritorious performance. In your case, you were found guilty at NJP for three incidents of misconduct that raised serious questions about your continued value as a Naval Officer. In particular, the Board found· that the misconduct that formed the basis for your conduct unbecoming an officer charge supported the Navy's decision to separate you. The Board felt that your attempt to convince a juni or officer to conceal misconduct committed by you was inexcusable behavior that likely would have been enough to separate you without the two addi tional charges. The Navy cannot afford to have offic~rs in their employment who lack the integrity and moral compass necessary to uphold the law and lead Sailors. After reviewing the evidence, including the cross examination by your counsel, the Board found that the testimony that you attempted to convince him not to tell the Commanding Officer of your misconduct was credible. This convinced them that .you were correctly discharged due to the seriousness of your misconduct despite your previously stellar career performance. In other words, the seriousness of your misconduct outweighed the mitigation offered by you in positive performance. · 

Related to the previous argument is your contention that the BOI's recommendation and the Navy's decision that you deserve an Honorable characterization contradicted their determination that you should be separated. Again, the Board disagreed with your rationale . Characterizations of service describe the nature of past Naval service and not whether an officer is capable for continued service. While an Honorable characterization of service may be indicative of future performance potential, it is not dispositive of the issue. SECNAVINST 1920.6c provides the following guidelines for Honorable characterizations of service, "Officers whose quality of service have generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for officers of the Naval Service, or are otherwise so meritorious that any other characterizati on would be clearly inappropriate, shall have their service characterized as Honorable ." Since the regulations authorized the awarding of Honorable characterizations of service even in misconduct cases and you provided 
ample ·evidence to the BOI and the Navy that your service was so meritorious that any other characterization of service would be inappropriate, the Board concluded the recommendation of an Hono~able characterization of service is not inconsistent with the BOI's determination that you lacked potential for future service. 

Finally, the Board disagreed with your contention that you should be qualified for a disability retirement. Despite evidence that you suffered from symptoms of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder {PTSD) and are currently rated 70% disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs for the condition, you would have been i neligible for disability processing due to your administrative separat ion for misconduct. SECNAVINST 1850.4E states that separation processing for misconduct supersedes disability processing. Since you were processed for misconduct, the Board concluded you were properly not referred to the Disability Evaluation System. The Board also concluded .that even if you would have been eligible, there was no evidence t hat your PTSD symptoms impaired your ability to perform your duties . As you pointed out in your application, you were able to earn a Ph.D. in Industrial and Organizational Psychology after your' discharge. In addition, your pre-separation fitness reports and testimony provided by character witnesses at your BOI showed .you were performing except ionally well despite your PTSD symptoms. This convinced the Board that even if you had been referred to a medical board or the Physical Evalu~tion Board for your PTSD symptoms, there was insufficient evidence t o show .an sufficient occupat ional impairment to warrant a finding of unfitness for continued naval . service. For the same reasons outlined above, the Board felt your PTSD symptoms had no tangible impact on your misconduct or performance while you were in the Navy. Accordingly, the Board was unable to find an error or injustice warranting 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 t he Board prior to making its decision in this case. 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, 

 
Executive Director