[00:00:02] Speaker 00:
Case number 14-5224, Walter J. Jackson Jr., Appellant v. Raymond Edwin Mabus Jr., Secretary of the Navy at L. Mr. Wells for the Appellants, Mr. Kelly for the Appellees.

[00:00:36] Speaker 04:
when your honors john wells for uh... and walter jackson and please the court uh... for in my brief and before this court and others i've argued that we generally give the correction boards way too much deference and i think this is an example of why in this particular case correction board should have and could have followed the existing regulations and found that mister jackson's record should be corrected and starting with dvd

[00:01:05] Speaker 04:
1327.6.

[00:01:06] Speaker 04:
I will agree with everyone, and that's on AR 150, or Joint Appendix 159, I believe.

[00:01:13] Speaker 04:
I will agree with everyone that it's probably a very esoteric regulation.

[00:01:20] Speaker 04:
It's one that not a lot of people know about.

[00:01:22] Speaker 04:
But it is the regulation.

[00:01:23] Speaker 04:
It's the regulation that was the guidance in this particular case.

[00:01:27] Speaker 05:
Is there any place

[00:01:28] Speaker 05:
in the record here where the government addresses that claim?

[00:01:34] Speaker 04:
No, Your Honor, and it was brought up before both the BCNR and in the court below, which is one of the things that makes it so bothersome.

[00:01:42] Speaker 04:
And the problem with it is the folks that were in Bahrain, the commanding officer was not an expert on the travel regs.

[00:01:50] Speaker 04:
I happened to find out about it because I came home from the Persian Gulf on emergency leave and my mother was dying, found out that

[00:01:57] Speaker 04:
my trance at time did not count as leave and then I surrendered back or reported back to the court of embarkation.

[00:02:04] Speaker 04:
So when I got this case I actually looked to see it was the same as FEML and it certainly was.

[00:02:09] Speaker 04:
I understand why people didn't know about it but it was brought to the BCNR's attention.

[00:02:14] Speaker 04:
So we've got you know that issue where

[00:02:18] Speaker 04:
He was issued a government travel document with a government ticket paid for by the United States government that said, get to the plane at this time.

[00:02:28] Speaker 04:
And he did that.

[00:02:29] Speaker 04:
He was confused.

[00:02:31] Speaker 04:
He had already been counseled on a previous issue of leave.

[00:02:34] Speaker 04:
So he kind of went the extra mile there and went to the command duty officer and said, hey, CDO.

[00:02:40] Speaker 04:
Am I supposed to go ahead and do this, go catch this plane?

[00:02:45] Speaker 04:
There was no way to check with Sato.

[00:02:46] Speaker 04:
It was the Muslim Sabbath on Bahrain.

[00:02:48] Speaker 04:
They did recognize that.

[00:02:50] Speaker 04:
Sato was closed.

[00:02:52] Speaker 04:
So the CDO, who had the authority, said, yes, go catch the plane.

[00:02:56] Speaker 04:
And this is the second area where the BCNR failed, because they found, without any kind of documentation, citation,

[00:03:05] Speaker 04:
or any authority that the command duty officer did not have the authority to modify the lead.

[00:03:11] Speaker 04:
But if you look at the appendix, I think starting at 160, there are several documents, including their own instruction, which says, in fact, the command duty officer sits in the stead of the commanding officer or the executive officer and has that power.

[00:03:25] Speaker 04:
I will apologize.

[00:03:26] Speaker 04:
I believe it's 166.

[00:03:28] Speaker 04:
which is the government, I'm sorry, the NAVCOM state, Naval Communication Station directive.

[00:03:36] Speaker 04:
It's very hard to read, especially when you get up to my age, but if you can kind of look through the black and down, it's the best copy I had.

[00:03:43] Speaker 04:
It does show that they stand in the first and second line, that the CDO is the direct

[00:03:50] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry, what page are you on?

[00:03:52] Speaker 04:
166, appendix 166.

[00:03:54] Speaker 04:
It's the NAF CONTEL of our rain instruction 1601.2 Bravo up at the top left-hand corner.

[00:04:01] Speaker 04:
And the first paragraph has been highlighted with some color of a highlighter.

[00:04:06] Speaker 04:
It's not a good copy, I'm sorry, but it's the one I have.

[00:04:09] Speaker 04:
And it says the command duty officer does stand in, or the direct representative of the commanding officer.

[00:04:18] Speaker 04:
The papers before that, the pages before that, the naval orientation book.

[00:04:23] Speaker 04:
the standard organization and regulations manual of the Navy, specifically stated as the duties of the command duty officer.

[00:04:31] Speaker 04:
I mean, I've been a command duty officer for my 22 years in the service.

[00:04:34] Speaker 04:
I guarantee you you had that authority.

[00:04:36] Speaker 04:
Now, did he make the right decision?

[00:04:38] Speaker 04:
Arguably, he did.

[00:04:40] Speaker 04:
But even if he didn't, he still had the authority and certainly the apparent authority to make that decision and send the kid on leave.

[00:04:48] Speaker 04:
And that's what it comes down to.

[00:04:51] Speaker 04:
Mr. Jackson, for whatever reason, had gotten into a bad stead with the command.

[00:04:56] Speaker 04:
That happens, okay?

[00:04:58] Speaker 04:
He also had 16 years of good service and was put out of the Navy as an ivory enlistment at that point with only four years to go to retirement.

[00:05:07] Speaker 04:
The government in their brief talks about a number of things such as, well, he was a troublemaker, not a good guy, you know, something went wrong.

[00:05:17] Speaker 04:
He went back on active duty with the National Guard.

[00:05:19] Speaker 04:
And in fact, had a good career during the BP oil spill.

[00:05:25] Speaker 04:
So, you know, we have this one period where all of a sudden this guy's a bad guy, and 16, really 17 years, where he was a good guy.

[00:05:33] Speaker 04:
Something's wrong here.

[00:05:34] Speaker 04:
What's wrong is somebody took a dislike to this guy.

[00:05:37] Speaker 04:
The correction board was set up for the purpose of ferreting those things out.

[00:05:42] Speaker 04:
and correcting them.

[00:05:43] Speaker 04:
They chose not to do that.

[00:05:44] Speaker 04:
In choosing not to do that, they did not apply the DOD directive.

[00:05:48] Speaker 04:
They did not apply all the Navy regulations, the standards, the customs and service as to the command duty officer.

[00:05:55] Speaker 04:
Then, let's look at the vacation of the suspension that actually took him down one pay grade, okay?

[00:06:04] Speaker 04:
He gets into an argument with the Chief Petty Officer.

[00:06:06] Speaker 04:
That happens.

[00:06:08] Speaker 04:
He's an E-6, she's an E-7.

[00:06:09] Speaker 04:
They're one pay grade difference.

[00:06:10] Speaker 04:
It happens.

[00:06:11] Speaker 04:
It happens all the time.

[00:06:12] Speaker 04:
I mean, I've argued with my bosses, okay?

[00:06:15] Speaker 04:
Gets into an argument, is not given a hearing before they pull and vacate that suspension, and I believe it was on the last day or possibly the day before that the CEO could do it.

[00:06:27] Speaker 04:
So now we're looking at

[00:06:28] Speaker 04:
No hearing, no opportunity to be heard.

[00:06:31] Speaker 04:
The judge advocate general, I'm sorry I slipped into the vernacular, specifically says that in almost anything but very unusual circumstances, you should grant them a hearing.

[00:06:44] Speaker 04:
I've administered masks.

[00:06:46] Speaker 04:
Probably the only one in this room that has.

[00:06:48] Speaker 04:
And I've only vacated his suspension once.

[00:06:50] Speaker 04:
And I guarantee you, I gave him a hearing.

[00:06:52] Speaker 04:
Because that's what the book says to do.

[00:06:54] Speaker 04:
That's what the manual of the Judge Advocate General says to do.

[00:06:58] Speaker 04:
10 USC 1552 is a equitable statute.

[00:07:03] Speaker 04:
It basically says correct injustice.

[00:07:06] Speaker 04:
Here the BCNR conceded, by reviewing the polygraph test, Mr. Jackson believed he was in the right.

[00:07:14] Speaker 04:
Even if you can find a technical violation, and in light of that DOD instruction, and in light of the custom service and directives for command duty officer, I don't think you can.

[00:07:25] Speaker 04:
But even if you could, equitably, the BCNR should have acted.

[00:07:30] Speaker 03:
The original May 7, 07 letter details a series of things.

[00:07:39] Speaker 03:
And there's not just one thing here.

[00:07:43] Speaker 04:
Yeah, we were talking about the Navy's original letter at 68.

[00:07:51] Speaker 03:
I would have 40.

[00:08:00] Speaker 03:
AR 40.

[00:08:06] Speaker 03:
It's the May 707 letter from Mr. Jackson.

[00:08:11] Speaker 03:
It just goes through a series of things.

[00:08:14] Speaker 04:
And if you look again at some of the things that are reflected in there, for example, the May 2006 attempted suicide, the allegation that he

[00:08:25] Speaker 04:
escaped control of somebody who was escorting him back to the states.

[00:08:31] Speaker 04:
All that comes from an ex parte letter that was brought up to the Board for Correction of Naval Records.

[00:08:36] Speaker 04:
We were not even initially given an opportunity to comment on it.

[00:08:40] Speaker 04:
It was an advisory opinion, but in fact, it was written not by an organization of the Department of the Navy,

[00:08:47] Speaker 04:
to give advisory opinions, it was written by the same command they imposed on non-judicial punishment.

[00:08:53] Speaker 03:
You know, and if you look at the Christopher decision... There's the unauthorized leave, there's the insubordinations, there's the escaping from the escort, there's the refusal to go to scheduled appointments, second adverse enlisted evaluation.

[00:09:10] Speaker 03:
And I realize you could pick off each of these, but there's a series of things here.

[00:09:15] Speaker 04:
Every time you write a series of things, that doesn't mean it's true.

[00:09:20] Speaker 03:
I totally agree with that.

[00:09:21] Speaker 03:
There's more than just the one thing.

[00:09:25] Speaker 04:
I understand, Your Honor, but we have to go at what he was actually convicted of at an NJP or Captain's Mast, and that's why we concentrated that on that.

[00:09:34] Speaker 04:
I understand.

[00:09:34] Speaker 04:
Because it was the seminal document.

[00:09:36] Speaker 04:
You take away the NJP, the Captain's Mast, you take away the NCO evaluation, because that was in reliance on the Captain's Mast, you take away everything.

[00:09:48] Speaker 04:
That was the seminal document.

[00:09:50] Speaker 04:
Your honors, I'm into my rebuttal time.

[00:09:53] Speaker 04:
If you have any questions.

[00:09:54] Speaker 01:
I do have a question.

[00:09:57] Speaker 01:
You went through a lot of things very quickly.

[00:09:59] Speaker 01:
Sorry, Judge.

[00:09:59] Speaker 01:
And I'm trying to follow the arguments here.

[00:10:03] Speaker 01:
So you started off by saying there is this administrative leave regulation, which no one understands.

[00:10:11] Speaker 01:
And you also said the command duty officer clearly has the authority

[00:10:17] Speaker 01:
to do what he did.

[00:10:19] Speaker 01:
Yes ma'am.

[00:10:19] Speaker 01:
So I want to, it's hard to read that initial document that you cited to us, but as best I can make it out through the highlighting, it says something like the CDO is the direct representative of the commanding officer unless

[00:10:39] Speaker 01:
specifically relieved of this responsibility.

[00:10:43] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:10:43] Speaker 01:
Okay and then so what I want to ask you about is back on page 93 okay so

[00:10:59] Speaker 01:
So on 93, there's a specific leave policy here for Bahrain, and it says the CDO will coordinate official responses to extension requests with the member's chain of command, and that the commanding officer or executive officer will approve all the extensions, which suggests to me that that was in fact

[00:11:24] Speaker 01:
something he couldn't do under this leave policy.

[00:11:28] Speaker 01:
Am I wrong about that?

[00:11:29] Speaker 04:
Yes, ma'am.

[00:11:30] Speaker 04:
And the reason is because we're talking about leave extensions which happen after you've actually executed the leave.

[00:11:36] Speaker 04:
For example, later on when he was in return because of Katrina, the CDO with the concurrence of the CEO and the EXO actually gave some leave extensions.

[00:11:45] Speaker 04:
But this was not a leave extension.

[00:11:47] Speaker 04:
It was actually departing on the travel status prior to the start of the leave.

[00:11:54] Speaker 04:
And under the DOD regulation, the travel status did not count the leave.

[00:11:58] Speaker 04:
In other words, his leave did not start until he got back to the United States.

[00:12:03] Speaker 04:
His leave ended when he got back to the port of Embarkesh.

[00:12:07] Speaker 04:
And if you'll notice,

[00:12:11] Speaker 04:
And again, I understand the confusion on this.

[00:12:14] Speaker 04:
It's easy to get confused.

[00:12:16] Speaker 04:
There's very few people who, and I learned about it, like I said, just because of personal experience.

[00:12:21] Speaker 04:
But if you look at this whole process, this started out as an environmental morale lever, an EMM.

[00:12:29] Speaker 04:
which in which case if he continued as an EML, a leave would have started at the point that he left at Bahrain and ended when he got to Bahrain.

[00:12:38] Speaker 04:
The difference is with an EML, you take a space available military transport.

[00:12:44] Speaker 04:
So for example, if there was a C-141 leaving Bahrain on his leave date, he would have been put on that 141 and his leave would have started when he got on the 141 and when he got back.

[00:12:59] Speaker 04:
Because there was no military transportation available that day, it morphed into what they call the Funded Environmental Leave, FEML,

[00:13:11] Speaker 04:
which now the rules is somewhat different and it says the transit time to and from does not count as the leave.

[00:13:18] Speaker 04:
The reason we have this, as it was explained to me, is budgetary in nature because the federal government cannot fund a transportation when he's on leave or when a military member is on leave.

[00:13:31] Speaker 04:
Because when you're on leave, you're supposed to pay for everything yourself.

[00:13:35] Speaker 04:
So because they're in this remote location, and a vendor bar range is very remote, you

[00:13:43] Speaker 04:
are given funded leave to get back to the continental United States, or not funded leave, funded transportation to get back to the United States.

[00:13:52] Speaker 04:
Once you reach the United States, then your leave goes into effect.

[00:13:56] Speaker 04:
And then any further transportation that you have that's going to fly to New Orleans or whatever, that's on your own hook.

[00:14:03] Speaker 04:
I hope I'm not confusing.

[00:14:03] Speaker 01:
I hope I made it kind of clear.

[00:14:05] Speaker 01:
I think I'm following.

[00:14:06] Speaker 01:
And so in your view then, this all starts because he's on unauthorized

[00:14:13] Speaker 01:
status, that's the beginning of the discipline here.

[00:14:16] Speaker 01:
And your argument would be that he was never on unauthorized status, so everything that flowed from that was incorrect.

[00:14:25] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, you're exactly right.

[00:14:27] Speaker 04:
And does that make it clear as mud for you?

[00:14:30] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:14:31] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:14:31] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:14:32] Speaker 04:
Again, I'm way over time.

[00:14:33] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:14:33] Speaker 04:
I hope you grant me a little bit of rebuttal in case my friend, Mr. Kelly, misspeaks and I have to mention something.

[00:14:38] Speaker 04:
But did you all have any more other questions?

[00:14:43] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:14:44] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:15:02] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the Court, Wynn Kelly on behalf of the BCNR and the government in this case.

[00:15:09] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, first I'd like to address Judge Williams' question, which is the government did address the funded environmental and morality of on page 32 and 33 of its brief and explained that the instruction that Mr. Jackson relies on does not give the purchase that Mr. Jackson wishes it did in that... Is this explanation anywhere in the record?

[00:15:36] Speaker 02:
In the BCNR – so the BCNR, based on the record before it, concurred with the conclusion of the commanding officer at the nonjudicial punishment that Mr. Jackson was in an unauthorized leave status.

[00:15:55] Speaker 05:
And this – and that in turn responds to the regulation that we had before us?

[00:16:02] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, if the court looks to the original May 7th opinion, and that's a Joint Appendix 68 and 69, the BCNR does state that it specifically referenced all regulations, statutes,

[00:16:19] Speaker 05:
That's normally not good enough.

[00:16:22] Speaker 05:
Normally when an agency is interpreting a regulation, it gives the text, explains why it's reading it in a particular way.

[00:16:29] Speaker 05:
To say we've looked at the regulations doesn't do it.

[00:16:34] Speaker 02:
Well, two responses to your honor's question or comment.

[00:16:38] Speaker 02:
The first is,

[00:16:41] Speaker 02:
This case needs to be viewed in context, which is, and Mr. Wells conceded, Mr. Jackson had just been warned three months prior about an issue he had with his leave.

[00:16:53] Speaker 02:
He had checked in late on leave.

[00:16:55] Speaker 05:
That doesn't make every subsequent leave court martial worthy.

[00:17:00] Speaker 02:
He was written up and warned about the leave issue.

[00:17:05] Speaker 05:
You aren't responding to my point.

[00:17:08] Speaker 05:
If the regulation, cited, means what council says it means, and on its face it seems to point that way, then doesn't the government at some point have to address that?

[00:17:24] Speaker 02:
The regulation does not mean what Mr. Jackson says it means, and as we stated in our brief, it relates to the calculation of leave that's charged to the member that is separate and apart from the court-martial charge of unauthorized absence from your post.

[00:17:44] Speaker 02:
There are two separate issues.

[00:17:46] Speaker 02:
He could leave.

[00:17:48] Speaker 05:
The council described a link between them, and that is that in order to have the funded leave, the actual travel had to be

[00:18:01] Speaker 05:
without leave, right?

[00:18:04] Speaker 05:
Maybe that's completely hokey, but he offers that as an explanation, and it's not on its face completely hokey.

[00:18:12] Speaker 02:
And that is absolutely, the government concedes that that is correct, Your Honor.

[00:18:16] Speaker 02:
However, he would have a leave authorization to leave on July 30th, as he did, and come back on August 14th.

[00:18:24] Speaker 02:
and the travel time when he properly left the base would not count against his leave balance once his leave was actually charged when he checked back in.

[00:18:35] Speaker 02:
But he doesn't have the authority to say, oh, even though my papers only allow me to leave the base on July 30th, I can leave a day earlier because my flight leaves earlier.

[00:18:45] Speaker 02:
And what's important, Your Honor, is the record is filled with Mr. Jackson acknowledging this.

[00:18:51] Speaker 02:
particularly at Joint Appendix 120, where he notes that his offenses were minor, and he doesn't understand why he's being punished for these issues by being dismissed from the Navy.

[00:19:06] Speaker 02:
At Joint Appendix 39, what was... When was it you're pointing to?

[00:19:09] Speaker 02:
Joint Appendix 120.

[00:19:10] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:19:15] Speaker 02:
Paragraph 8.

[00:19:19] Speaker 02:
about halfway down, this is when everything seemed to take a turn for the worst.

[00:19:22] Speaker 02:
My offenses were minor and disposed of at captain's mast.

[00:19:26] Speaker 02:
I accepted my punishment and continued to do, I believe that should be my job to the best of my ability.

[00:19:35] Speaker 02:
The record before the board, the advisory opinion, which this court and Roberts noted that the BCNR can properly look to, at joint appendix 70,

[00:19:54] Speaker 02:
At the bottom, after counsel with Lieutenant Parr, Petty Officer Jackson decided to accept nonjudicial punishment and avoid a federal conviction in offense that he would have been found guilty of at court martial due to his confession of being UA.

[00:20:09] Speaker 02:
At NJP, he was found guilty of being UA.

[00:20:12] Speaker 02:
And that leads to my next point, Your Honors, which is

[00:20:15] Speaker 02:
Jackson both in the district court and here has attempted to rely on this theory that the command duty officer somehow has the authority to excuse a member's absence from his post.

[00:20:29] Speaker 02:
First, there's nothing in the regulations that specifically says that.

[00:20:32] Speaker 02:
Merely being the direct representative at the post doesn't mean that you have the authority.

[00:20:39] Speaker 02:
There's no evidence in the record that either the commanding officer herself or the executive officer was absent, were absent.

[00:20:47] Speaker 02:
which might, again, might have allowed the command duty officer to modify leave.

[00:20:56] Speaker 02:
But what's most important is the person who has the authority to modify leave is the commanding officer.

[00:21:02] Speaker 02:
The commanding officer herself is the one who administered the nonjudicial punishment, and she is the one who had the opportunity to review all of the records, and she's the one who had the opportunity to hear all of the arguments that Mr. Jackson attempts to make here, and she found him guilty.

[00:21:20] Speaker 02:
Mr. Jackson accepted that punishment, and it was a light punishment.

[00:21:24] Speaker 02:
Mr. Jackson met with counsel five times.

[00:21:27] Speaker 02:
accepted that punishment, which was a wise choice, because if he had gotten a court martial, he would have gotten a bad conduct discharge and had a federal conviction on his record.

[00:21:38] Speaker 02:
His punishment was one-half pay for two months and a reduction in grade, which was suspended for six months.

[00:21:45] Speaker 02:
All he had to do was stay out of trouble.

[00:21:47] Speaker 02:
He made it through five months.

[00:21:49] Speaker 02:
And then he got into an altercation with a superior officer, a chief petty officer, admitted

[00:21:57] Speaker 02:
at the disciplinary review board exactly what the chief petty officer said occurred occurred that he had screamed at her and said that he did not respect her ghetto style of leadership.

[00:22:09] Speaker 02:
And then the commanding officer properly vacated the suspension.

[00:22:14] Speaker 02:
Mr. Wells and Mr. Jackson claimed that he should have had some sort of hearing.

[00:22:20] Speaker 02:
And there's two responses to that.

[00:22:22] Speaker 02:
First, he had a hearing before the Disciplinary Review Board where he admitted all of the conduct at issue.

[00:22:27] Speaker 02:
So there should be no additional process necessary.

[00:22:31] Speaker 02:
And the JAG manual that Mr. Jackson relies on

[00:22:35] Speaker 02:
does not have mandatory language.

[00:22:37] Speaker 02:
It says should.

[00:22:38] Speaker 02:
And as this court held in Cone versus Caldera, where there's military regulations that do not have mandatory language but simply suggestive language,

[00:22:49] Speaker 02:
This court needs to defer, and that's at 223, Federal Reporter 3rd, 789 on page 793, where the regulation does not mandate that the court should defer to the military's and the BCNR's interpretation.

[00:23:06] Speaker 02:
As Judge Kavanaugh pointed out, the BCNR had in the record before it a string of offenses by Mr. Jackson.

[00:23:17] Speaker 02:
And Mr. Jackson did have 16 years of service when he was in Bahrain, and he was also a non-commissioned officer.

[00:23:27] Speaker 02:
was tasked with leading other sailors and was tasked with knowing all of these procedures.

[00:23:35] Speaker 02:
He had been counseled.

[00:23:36] Speaker 02:
He left in an unauthorized status.

[00:23:40] Speaker 02:
He came back late.

[00:23:41] Speaker 02:
There's no evidence in the record that he attempted to call while he was on his funded environmental morale leave and had his leave extended.

[00:23:49] Speaker 02:
He just came back late.

[00:23:51] Speaker 02:
He accepted nonjudicial punishment after consultation with counsel.

[00:23:56] Speaker 02:
The commanding officer found him guilty.

[00:23:59] Speaker 02:
He was placed on suspended sentence or suspended punishment.

[00:24:05] Speaker 02:
He could not stay out of trouble, and so therefore he was properly found to not be eligible for reenlistment.

[00:24:12] Speaker 01:
You know, the BCNR does not give as detailed an explanation

[00:24:19] Speaker 01:
of why it was okay to vacate this suspension without further notice, as you did.

[00:24:24] Speaker 01:
Is it is what they did here sufficient for us to decide we can discern how they figured it out?

[00:24:34] Speaker 01:
Because your explanation would just be ad hoc rationalization.

[00:24:38] Speaker 02:
We are the

[00:24:43] Speaker 02:
We don't believe that this is any issue of post hoc rationalization.

[00:24:50] Speaker 02:
I'm trying to point the court to the specific language.

[00:24:57] Speaker 01:
Because I only see one sentence there.

[00:25:00] Speaker 01:
But if there is a better explanation, it would be helpful.

[00:25:16] Speaker 02:
In the BCNR's decision, the board does incorporate... October 15, 2013?

[00:25:31] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, I'm looking at the May 7, 2007, so that's at Appendix 68 and 69.

[00:25:37] Speaker 02:
It says that the board also found no error of injustice in the vacation action, which I believe is what Judge Brown was referring to.

[00:25:44] Speaker 02:
It does incorporate the memorandum on the outside.

[00:25:53] Speaker 02:
I guess the response is that the board did acknowledge that it found no error.

[00:26:01] Speaker 02:
And the record does contain, and I can point the court to it,

[00:26:06] Speaker 02:
the hearing before the disciplinary review board where it states that Mr. Jackson admitted to the conduct and that is

[00:26:35] Speaker 02:
That's it, joint appendix 102.

[00:26:37] Speaker 02:
That's the record of the disciplinary hearing before the board.

[00:26:51] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, the original, so once the disciplinary review board referred it, they referred it for nonjudicial punishment.

[00:26:58] Speaker 02:
That's appendix 106.

[00:27:01] Speaker 02:
to 109, and then the commanding officer's explanation of her vacation is at article 110, at article, excuse me, appendix 110.

[00:27:12] Speaker 02:
And then the, as we set forth the path of the BCNR's decision making there because of the record before it is clear.

[00:27:25] Speaker 02:
Judge Brown, if I may just make one more comment and briefly conclude.

[00:27:29] Speaker 02:
The other thing I would respond to your question, Your Honor, is

[00:27:35] Speaker 02:
The board here provided Mr. Jackson multiple opportunities on remand to provide all of the information that he possibly could.

[00:27:44] Speaker 02:
And some, if not all, of these arguments were not before it.

[00:27:49] Speaker 02:
Based on the record that was before it, the path to its decision making was clear.

[00:27:54] Speaker 02:
It was amply supported by the record, particularly the multiple incidents of misconduct by Mr. Jackson.

[00:28:01] Speaker 02:
And for those reasons, we would ask that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.

[00:28:08] Speaker 01:
I know that Mr. Wells had no time, but we will give you two minutes of rebuttal.

[00:28:13] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:28:15] Speaker 04:
Very briefly, CDO issues and the DOD 1327.6, which are the key issues in this case, along with the jag man, were before the board because I submitted them to the board.

[00:28:25] Speaker 04:
And let's take a talk about the Jagman.

[00:28:29] Speaker 04:
Mr. Kelly used the term should.

[00:28:31] Speaker 04:
He's only reading from part of it.

[00:28:33] Speaker 04:
If you look at page 33 on our original brief, we did quote from it, before vacating a suspension, a commanding officer ordinarily shall, which is mandatory.

[00:28:44] Speaker 04:
It's modified by ordinarily, which means

[00:28:47] Speaker 04:
And just about every case, unless you've got a good reason, shall notify the service member and give that member the opportunity to respond.

[00:28:53] Speaker 04:
That did not happen here.

[00:28:55] Speaker 04:
The discharge review board, let's look what it is.

[00:28:57] Speaker 04:
It's not a hearing.

[00:28:58] Speaker 04:
The people that make up the discharge review board are chief pay officers sitting there doing an administrative screening.

[00:29:05] Speaker 04:
And they have no powers under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

[00:29:08] Speaker 04:
Only a court-martial or the commanding officer have powers under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

[00:29:14] Speaker 04:
It's a recommendation, it's a screening.

[00:29:16] Speaker 04:
It's used basically to weed out the wheat and the chaff between two seamen who argue with each other.

[00:29:21] Speaker 04:
we have between a first class and a chief, and of course it was chiefs making up the board.

[00:29:25] Speaker 04:
I'm not surprised that they came to the decision they did.

[00:29:28] Speaker 04:
But let's go back to I think what is the most important thing here is 1327.6, which the government concedes it says what it says.

[00:29:36] Speaker 04:
There are additional issues, including a Sato governmental travel order and travel ticket.

[00:29:45] Speaker 04:
He says there's no authority for Jackson to have left.

[00:29:48] Speaker 04:
That gives him the authority.

[00:29:50] Speaker 04:
Secondly, look at the CDO again, not just on those.

[00:29:53] Speaker 01:
Can I interrupt you?

[00:29:54] Speaker 01:
Because he made one point that I thought I had not thought about this.

[00:29:59] Speaker 01:
There you argue that the CDO authorized his leave on the front end.

[00:30:04] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:30:05] Speaker 01:
Council also said he returned late as well.

[00:30:10] Speaker 01:
Didn't call in didn't do anything about that.

[00:30:12] Speaker 01:
So.

[00:30:13] Speaker 01:
there isn't an answer on the back end, or is there?

[00:30:16] Speaker 04:
Yes, ma'am, there is.

[00:30:17] Speaker 04:
Again, and I think I mentioned this initially, under the leave expires back at the port of embarkation, which in, you know, let's just say Norfolk, Virginia.

[00:30:27] Speaker 04:
I'm not sure where it was.

[00:30:28] Speaker 04:
Norfolk or Philadelphia is usually where it is, not at Bahrain.

[00:30:33] Speaker 04:
So he got back to Norfolk or Philadelphia, wherever it was, within his time limitation.

[00:30:40] Speaker 04:
And again, that goes with the transit time is not considered leave time.

[00:30:45] Speaker 04:
So he was in business on that.

[00:30:50] Speaker 04:
look at 160 to 166.

[00:30:52] Speaker 04:
It's both the standard organizational regulation manual of the Navy and naval orientation.

[00:30:59] Speaker 04:
It explains what the CDO does.

[00:31:01] Speaker 04:
The CDO has that authority.

[00:31:02] Speaker 04:
You know, I've done it before.

[00:31:05] Speaker 04:
And that's the problem.

[00:31:07] Speaker 04:
The Board for Correction of Naval Records should understand that, and they don't.

[00:31:11] Speaker 04:
And I'm sorry.

[00:31:11] Speaker 04:
I'm over time again.

[00:31:12] Speaker 04:
I apologize.

[00:31:15] Speaker 04:
You know, I was hoping that Mr Kelly would say he had some sympathy for Mr Jackson also, but he's also on a point of privilege, a good guy, and he served his time.

[00:31:26] Speaker 04:
He deserves his retirement.

[00:31:27] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:31:27] Speaker 04:
Your honors.

[00:31:28] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:31:29] Speaker 01:
The case will be submitted.