DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 2656-19 Docket No: 2664-19 Ref: Signature Date Dear This letter is in reference to your applications 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your applications have been denied. 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. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your applications on 31 March 2020. 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 record, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. The Board also considered the enclosed 14 March 2019 advisory opinions (AO) furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-834) and (PERS-32. The AOs were provided to you on 6 August 2019, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response. When you did not provide a response, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration. The Board carefully considered your request to remove your 16 March 2018 nonjudicial punishment (NJP), your punitive letter of reprimand (PLOR), your detachment for cause (DFC) documentation, and your fitness report and counseling record for the reporting period 1 November 2017 to 31 October 2018. The Board considered your assertions that you performed your duties as a chaplain to safeguard the free exercise of religion of the crew, but your commanding officer (CO) prevented you from visiting reactor spaces, objected to the advertising of religious services, and removed prayer at command formations. You assert that you challenged him in these matters and advocated on behalf of service members’ rights and fair treatment. The Board also considered your contentions that your CO did not like your advocacy; therefore, when he saw the opportunity to chastise you, he imposed an unjust and unsubstantiated NJP, a PLOR, and an adverse fitness report, and your contention that a board of inquiry (BOI) found no grounds of misconduct. The Board also considered your contention that you felt discriminated against for doing your job, and that you were not able to exercise your right to refuse Captain’s Mast because you were attached to a vessel. The Board noted that, while assigned to the USS as the principal assistant Navy chaplain, a preliminary inquiry (PI) was initiated into allegation of your inappropriate conduct. Subsequently, on 16 March 2018, you received NJP for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 133 (conduct unbecoming) by engaging in a pattern of unprofessional and inappropriate conduct toward a petty officer second class (PO2) with whom you had been counseling. Your commanding officer (CO) noted that, while not sexual in nature, your e-mails, text messages, and verbal comments directed toward the PO2 were excessively familiar and were bordering on harassment. You were found guilty of the charge and you were awarded a PLOR. On 20 March 2018, you appealed your NJP, claiming that it was unjust, that the punishment was disproportionate, and that it was the result of a flawed and one-sided investigation. Your CO forwarded your appeal and recommended disapproval, noting that your punishment was just and proportional to the offense, based on incontrovertible proof, that your behavior was inexcusable, and that it was made more egregious by the fact that the PO2 sought out your services in connection with a Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) case. On 31 March 2018, the Commander, Carrier Strike Group NINE disapproved your NJP appeal. He found that the NJP was just and proportionate to the offenses committed and that there were no procedural errors. On 10 April 2018, your CO submitted a Report of Misconduct and requested your detachment for cause (DFC) due to a loss of trust and confidence in your ability to lead and perform your duties as chaplain. On 12 April 2018, you responded to the report of misconduct, and disagreed with your CO’s assessment that you engaged in a pattern ofunprofessional and inappropriate conduct. You asserted that full e-mail text message chains were not included, that statements were taken out of context, that language translations were sloppy, and that you were only trying to help a Sailor during a difficult time. On 23 June 2018 the Deputy Chief of Naval Personnel (CNP) approved your DFC, and also determined that you would be required to show cause before a BOI. On 27 June 2018, the Commander, Navy Personnel Command (CNPC) (PERS-834) notified you of administrative show cause proceedings due to your misconduct and substandard performance of duty. On 2 October 2018, the BOI (by vote of 3 to 0) determined that the preponderance of evidence did not support your separation by reason of misconduct. However, the BOI unanimously determined that the preponderance of evidence did support your separation by reason of substandard performance due to failure to conform to prescribed standards of military deportment. The BOI determined that, although the reason specified is supported by the evidence, separation for cause was not warranted. On 14 May 2018, PERS-834 notified you that you were retained for naval service. You were issued a fitness report for the reporting period 1 November 2017 to 31 October 2018, and marked below standards in military bearing due to your NJP and DFC. You chose to submit a statement, but the statement did not conform to the policy requirements and was rejected by PERS-32. With regard to your contention that your CO imposed an unjust NJP based on a flawed investigation and unsubstantiated allegations, and that the NJP was imposed only because your CO did not like your advocacy in the execution of your duties, the Board noted that your CO relied, in part, on the report of a PI, and that prior to the imposition of NJP, you had the opportunity to view the evidence against you, and to submit a rebuttal in your defense. The Board also noted that you availed yourself to your right to appeal the NJP, and that your appeal was denied. The Board found no evidence that the PI was flawed, that you were discriminated against, or that your CO imposed NJP for any reason other than your misconduct, based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. Although you contend that you were not able to exercise your right to refuse Captain’s Mast, the Board noted that it was not your right to refuse NJP because you were attached to a vessel. The Board concluded that you were advised of and afforded all of your NJP and due process rights. With regard to your contention that a BOI found no grounds of misconduct, the Board noted that, although your BOI did not find sufficient evidence to warrant your separation from the Navy, that does not impact the validity of the NJP findings, and that it is conceivable and permissible that the two processes with separate considerations and purposes may arrive at different findings. The Board also noted that the imposition of NJP and the denial of your appeal were within your chain of command’s discretionary authority, and concludedthat you did not furnish sufficient evidence demonstrating probable material error or injustice warranting corrective action. 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,