DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 4274-19 Ref: Signature Date This letter is in reference to your application of 19 April 2019 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 application has been denied. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 May 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. The Board also considered the enclosed 30 August 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by Navy Personnel Command (NPC) (PERS-00J) and your response. 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 to remove your non-judicial punishment (NJP) received on 4 January 2019, and your 14 February 2019 Punitive Letter of Reprimand. The Board considered your contention that the guilty finding at your NJP was materially incorrect and unjust. You claim that the junior sailor was not your subordinate when you sent her the text messages, you had no direct authority over her, you had no oversight of her actions, you had no impact on the trajectory of her career, and your duty assignment locations were remote. You also contend that your actions did not violate Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and your punishment was unduly harsh and disproportionate. The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO that enough evidence existed for your commanding officer (CO) to reasonably conclude that your actions violated Article 134, UCMJ, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. The Board noted that your CO found you guilty at NJP for violation of Article 134, UCMJ, you were properly notified of your Article 31, UCMJ rights, afforded the opportunity to consult with a military lawyer, afforded your right to appeal the NJP, and the Commander, U.S. Naval Forces denied your appeal. The Board determined that your presumption that Article 134 requires the victim and alleged offender to be in the same chain of command is flawed because there is no such requirement. Further, the Board noted that you incorrectly defined subordinate as only those lower in rank within the same chain of command. The Board also determined that pursuant to the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) superior to subordinate relationships are mentioned in terms of whether the subordinate has a duty to obey the superior, regardless of duty station, the victim in this case would have a duty to obey a Senior Chief’s lawful orders. The Board further determined that the intent of Article 134 is to address acts which are not otherwise covered, but are prejudicial to good order and discipline. In your case, the context of your text messages to a junior Sailor with whom you had a romantic relationship were perceived as threatening, particularly in light your ongoing child custody dispute. Moreover, the Board determined that your claims regarding your inability to impact the junior sailor’s career and your remote geographic locations lacks merit, the sailor was your subordinate, thus your CO’s finding of guilt was just and within his discretionary authority. Concerning your contention that your punishment was unduly harsh and disproportionate, the Board determined that your Punitive Letter of Reprimand was not unduly harsh or disproportionate. Moreover, your CO did not exceed his authority when awarding your punishment. The Board thus concluded that there is no 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, 6/3/2020