DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 9126-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF LCDR , USN, XXX-XX- Ref: (a) IO U.S.C. § 1552 (b) SECNAVINST 1920.6C Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/enclosures (2) Command Investigation of 3 Nov 15 (3) Punitive Letter of Reprimand of 3 Dec 15 (4) NJP Report of 5 Feb 16 (5) Status in the Navy ltr 1920 Ser 834/328 of IO Jun 16 (6) Fitness for Command ltr 1300 PERS-00/023 of 23 Jan17 (7) Advisory Opinion, BUPERS-OOJ ltr of 30 Apr 20 (8) RADM , USN ltr of 25 Jun 20 (9) Response to Advisory Opinion of 9 July 20 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (I) with the Board for Correction of Naval Record (Board), requesting that her naval record be corrected by expunging from her official military personnel file (OMPF) all records related to Petitioner's non-judicial punishment (NJP), detachment for cause (DFC) and command de-screening to include fitness reports covering the period 1 November 2015 to 8 May 2016 and 9 May 2016 to 28 July 2016. In addition, Petitioner requests to set aside any failures of selection (FOS) for any promotion selection boards convened while the adverse documentation was in her OMPF, to restore Petitioner's name on the Surface Warfare Commander Command Bank, and to grant special selection board (SSB) consideration for all boards in which Petitioner failed to select while the derogatory information was in in her OMPF. 2. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 8 December 2020 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of Petitioner's naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice, found as follows: a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulation within the Department of the Navy. b. On 3 November 2015 a command investigation (Cl), enclosure (2) substantiated the allegation that the Petitioner made a racially discriminatory remark in the presence of her subordinates. On 19 November 2015 Petitioner was relieved from command. On 2 December 2015 Petitioner underwent NJP for a violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer) and received a Punitive Letter of Reprimand (PLOR). enclosure (3). Petitioner appealed the NJP and the PLOR on 17 December 2015. The appeal was denied by Commander, Naval Surface Force on 28 January 2016. On 5 February 2016, Commander submitted a report of NJP to Navy Personnel Command (NPC) enclosure (4), requesting DFC. On 8 June 2016, Commander, NPC (CNPC) approved Commander, DFC request. On IO June 2016 CNPC notified the Petitioner that she would not be required to show cause for retention in the Naval service, enclosure (5). Subsequently, Petitioner was removed from the Surface Warfare Commander Command Bank/de-screened for command on 23 January 2017, enclosure (6) and failed to select for promotion to Commander. c. Petitioner contends that the adverse actions taken against her were unjust as they resulted in harm to her career that was disproportionate to the incident. Petitioner argues that the matter should have been processed through the Equal Opportunity process instead of a CI and subsequent NJP. d. Enclosure (7), an advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Office of Legal Counsel (BUPERS-OOJ), recommended Petitioner's request be denied, due to the fact that Petitioner failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that the Command's actions were not proper and just or that the Command failed to follow proper procedures with regards to any of the actions taken against Petitioner. Petitioner submitted a rebuttal to the AO and included a letter of support from Rear Admiral , USN, enclosures (8) and (9). CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concurred with the AO and determined that Petitioner's Commanding Officer had the authority to determine if non­ judicial punishment was warranted for the incident. Consequently, the Board determined the punitive letter of reprimand, detachment for cause, fitness reports covering the period 1 November 2015 to 28 July 2016 and command de-screening shall be upheld. Furthermore, the Board found that the restoring Petitioner' s name on the Surface Warfare Commander Command Bank is not warranted, and Petitioner' s failure of selection is valid and a special selection board is not warranted. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board recommends no relief be granted. 4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board' s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board' s proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action. Executive Director 1/18/2021 PRINCIPAL DEPUTY. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (M&RA) DECISION: (Performing the Duties of.the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (M&RA)) Reviewed and Approved Board Recommendation (Deny Relief) PTDO ASN(M&RA) 2/10/2010