Court Filing, Doc. 287 — U.S. Navy Seals 1 26 v. Biden

Summary

Objection to the settlement agreement in U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden, filed 07/09/24 as Document 287 in Case 4:21-cv-01236-O (N.D. Tex.) by Commander Robert A. Green Jr., a class member who had sought a religious accommodation to the Navy mandate of the COVID-19 injection. He argues the settlement holds no one accountable, pointing to Rear Admiral James P. Waters, promoted to Commander of Navy Recruiting Command, whose recruiting X account blocked him. He also objects to narrow fixes of administrative records, the lack of special promotion boards and the absence of any compensation. Citing the $687,240.00 jury award in Benton v. BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, he puts punitive damages for over 4,000 class members at $2 Billion. Enclosures include his 1 July 2024 complaint of wrong against Waters, his 23 Dec 2021 complaint against Vice Admiral John B. Nowell and the Benton judgment.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors. Pages 19, 21–26, 28, 31, 32, and 37 of 37 are not shown because the text could not be recognized reliably.

Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Pagei1of3/7 PagelD 8138

OBJECTION TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL: cn In
U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden, 4:22-cv-01236-O (N. D.T Sh eae

Tex, HIERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
To: United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas | | WL - 9 9024
From: Robert A. Green Jr. | * aia
| CLERK, US. DJAJAICT COURT
Ref: (a) 42 USC § 1983 | By _ es

(b) Article 1150, U.S. Navy Regulations

Encl:

(1) Complaint of Wrong Under Art 1150, U.S. Navy Regulations Against Rear Admiral
Waters for Violation of the First Amendment and 42 USC § 1983, | Jul 2024

(2) Screenshot demonstrating that Respondent’s government X[Twitter] account,
@USNRectruiter, blocked Complainant’s private X[Twitter] account @RobGreen1010

(3) U.S. Navy Biography, Rear Admiral James Waters III, Director, Military Personnel
Plans and Policy Division, N13, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations

(4) Complaint of Wrong Under Art 1150, U.S. Navy Regulations Against Vice Admiral
Nowell for Unlawful Religious Discrimination, 23 Dec 2021

(5) Judgment Order, Benton v. BlueCross BlueShield of TN Inc, Case 1:22-cv-00118, U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, 28 June 2024

I, Robert A. Green Jr., one of the People as seen in the U.S. and all 50 American state
constitutions, republic in form, Sui Juris, serve this objection to the Court, that it may also serve as
notice to all parties involved.

In addition to being a member of We The People, I also hold the office of Commander, USN,
and, by virtue of having filed a.religious accommodation to the Navy mandate of the COVID-19
injection, I am a member of the Navy class as described in U.S. Navy SEALs v. Biden, 4:22-cv-
01236-O (N.D. Tex).

As a class member, I object to the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of this settlement
agreement for the following reasons:

Accountability

Nothing in this settlement holds Defendants or their agents accountable for their violations
and abuses. This lack of accountability has directly contributed to ongoing violations of the First
Amendment and continued harms to class members. One of Defendant’s agents, Rear Admiral James
P. Waters, was a direct party to the violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that led to
this Court granting a class-wide preliminary injunction. Rather than hold him accountable for his
violations, Navy leadership elected to support and promote Rear Admiral Waters, reinforcing the
apparent disdain that Navy leadership has for service members’ First Amendment rights. Since being
promoted to a new command position of considerable trust and prominence, Rear Admiral Waters
has been party to additional abuses, and is now the subject of an internal Navy complaint for new
violations of service member’s First Amendment rights committed as recently as June 2024. (Encl 1)

As the Director, Military Personnel Plans and Policies (OPNAV N13) from April 2021 to
March of 2024, Rear Admiral Waters, worked directly for Vice Admiral John B. Nowell (OPNAV
N1). In this role, he oversaw the OPNAV N131 Religious Accommodation Review Team. Under
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page 2of37 PagelD 8139

Rear Admiral Waters’ watch, the OPNAV N131 Religious Accommodation Review Team developed
and executed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to issue a template denial to each religious
accommodation request submitted by Dany sailors without doing the individualized review required
by law and military regulation.

While Vice Admiral Nowell was the one signing final disapprovals on each religious
accommodation requested, it was Rear Admiral Waters who was most closely involved in leading the
Religious Accommodation Review Team, and through whom he prepared each disapproval
recommendation for Vice Admiral Nowell. The evidence provided to this Court demonstrated that
the standardized religious accommodation denials passed through Rear Admiral Waters’ office
multiple times before ultimately being finalized by both Vice Admiral Nowell and Admiral Gilday.
The SOP provided to the court shows Rear Admiral Waters’ personal office code (N13) listed
' approximately 10 separate times. His name, listed as “J. P. Waters,” is also clearly shown in both
Step 33 and Step 39 of the SOP, as demonstrated in the court documents. (Encl 4)

Rear Admiral James P. Waters contributed significantly to a pattern of disregard for the law,
for service members’ rights, and for the U.S. Constitution. This entire episode has been a national
embarrassment for the Navy, contributed to a significant loss of trust with the American people, and
compounded the military recruiting crisis. Rather than hold Rear Admiral Waters accountable for his
actions, Navy leadership saw fit to promote him to a new command position. As the new
Commander of Navy Recruiting Command, Rear Admiral Waters, holds a position of significant
interest to American citizens due to its important role in building and maintaining trust for the sake
of recruiting.

As Commander of Navy Recruiting Command, Rear Admiral James Waters maintains a
public-facing X [Twitter] account. Under his authority, this account represents the official Navy
position and narrative concerning recruiting Americans for service in the United States Navy. After
pointing out a number of programmatic failures related to recruiting and rebuilding trust with the
American people, I was blocked from viewing or commenting on any post made by Rear Admiral
James Waters’ Navy Recruiting Command X [Twitter] Account. (Encl 2)

As one of the People and a citizen of the United States, I have a right to freely express my
views, particularly ones that relate to the running of our government, its executive branch agencies,
and its military departments. The action to block me, taken under the color of law, and within the
authority of an executive branch agency, deprived me of my right to free speech, which I retain as
one of the People, and which is explicitly protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Rear Admiral James Waters violated the law as promulgated in 42 U.S.C. § 1983, deprived me of my
inalienable Constitutional rights under the First Amendment, and, in so doing, violated his own oath
to the Constitution.

The @USNRecruiter X [Twitter] account is not Rear Admiral Waters’ private account.
Rather, it is an official government account under his control with which he promulgates Navy
narratives, and encourages the public to interact with the page. I am a member of the public, and,
because there can be no military exclusion for constitutional protections, I retain the right to free
speech as one of the People. Through use of frequent official messaging, Rear Admiral Waters
develops and implements a narrative to sway the opinion of the American people. Due to the
violation of my First Amendment rights, I no longer have the capability to freely respond nor to
exercise my rights related to these narratives.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page 3of3/7 PagelD 8140

As confirmed by the Supreme Court case O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, 601 U.S._(2024), the
deprivation of a citizen’s First Amendment rights from a government-controlled social media
account is not permitted under law. Therefore, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Rear Admiral
James Waters can be held liable in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceedings for
redress.

Navy leadership has deliberately chosen not to correct their strategic blunders over the
COVID-19 mandates, nor put any real efforts into ending First Amendment violations perpetrated
across the Navy. These decisions, and the decision to continue to promote Rear Admiral Waters in
spite of his abuses and usurpations, have only served to reinforce our senior leaders’ disregard for
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. These
decisions have enabled Rear Admiral Waters to go on to commit additional violations of service
member’s First Amendment rights (as seen in Encl 1), Rear Admiral Waters has demonstrated a
pattern of constitutional violations. Rather than deter these actions, Navy leadership has elected to
support and promote him.

Navy leadership has also demonstrated a pattern of First Amendment violations, a disdain for
the rights of service members, and contempt for the rulings of this Court. Despite what they say in
Court, the evidence provided in Enclosures land 2 demonstrate ongoing violations of the First
Amendment by parties involved in the very action before this Court. This case is still ripe for action,
because the harms to class members are still ongoing. Defendants and their agents are apparently not
ready for a settlement because they are not done causing harm.

Administrative Records

The repair of harms is not adequate because it only forces the Navy to correct records that
fall within a very narrowly defined category. Significant harms were perpetrated that fall outside the
definition detailed in the settlement. Service members were given poor evaluations, but many were
not given “significant problems” marks that would elevate the evaluation to the category of adverse
evaluation. These poor evaluations derailed careers by ensuring that sailors who were victims of
these actions would not be selected for promotion. In addition to the moral injury inflicted on these
sailors by Navy leadership, the sailors they targeted were denied promotion opportunities, potentially
costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars-worth of additional retirement pay as a result of
failing to obtain rightly-earned advancements in rank.

Service members who failed to be rightly promoted are not being granted special promotion
boards to address the harms done. Correcting the record cannot reverse time and give these sailors a
fair shot at promotion when their records were reviewed by promotion boards in 2022, 2023, and
early 2024. Only by convening a special promotion board for impacted class members could these
harms actually be repaired. There is, however, no provision in the settlement for granting special
promotion boards to class members despite it being the proper way to provide prospective relief.

Other actions, such as being relieved from leadership positions, cannot be corrected or
undone by a note in an administrative record. The sailors who were given menial labor outside their
normal duties, who were verbally and psychologically abused, and who suffered severe mental
health crises, will not be made whole because a note was made in their personnel file.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page4of3/7 PagelD 8141

For class members who have already retired or otherwise left the Naval Service, correcting
their record provides absolutely no tangible benefit, and cannot repair the harms done to them.

Monetary Damages

Rigidly holding the class to the original complaint does an injustice to class members and the
case should be expanded to include retrospective relief. The settlement does not compensate class
members in any way whatsoever, despite many class members enduring significant financial
hardship, medical complications, and mental health problems as a result of defendants’ actions.

Many reservist class members were barred from performing their drill periods and lost a
source of income that they had previously relied on before the mandate. A number of class members
had bonuses wrongfully recouped. All appeals to Defendants and their agents to reverse these bonus
recoupments have fallen on deaf ears. A significant number of class members have incurred separate
legal fees for actions caused by the Defendants, but only Class Counsel is being offered legal fees as
part of this settlement. Class members have suffered significant physical harms as a result of the
stress caused by Defendants’ actions including developing ulcers, struggling with mental health,
thoughts of suicide, and other significant problems. This proposed settlement does nothing to make
amends for the physical harm resulting from Defendants’ actions.

In accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Zanzin v. Tanvir, 592 U.S._(2020),
violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act permit litigants to seek monetary damages
against federal officials, yet Class Counsel has not sought damages on behalf of class members. The
value of the possible damages can be estimated using the 28 June 2024 judgement from a federal
district court in the case of Benton v BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee.

Tanja Benton was a Biostatistical research scientist working for BlueCross BlueShield of
Tennessee when her company mandated that she received the COVID-19 injection. She filed a
religious accommodation request which her company denied and ultimately fired her. At trial
Benton was awarded over $687,000 by a jury of her peers for her company’s violations of her
religious freedom rights, $500,000 of which was for punitive damages. (Encl 5)

Based on punitive damages alone, the Navy lawsuit with over 4,000 class members could be
worth a total of $2 Billion. If this seems like a great deal of money, bear in mind that this amount is
just about 1% of the total amount of aid provided to Ukraine so far. It is likely that only significant
punitive damages could make many class members whole from all the physical, mental, and
financial harms inflicted by the Defendants. A fund must be established, paid for by the Defendants,
that permits class members to make claims for damages incurred. This settlement, however, makes
no attempt to make class members whole, nor does it provide monetary damages of any kind.

Required Navy Actions

Under the terms of this settlement, the Navy is required to display a message on its website
for one year that states, in part, that “The United States Navy supports diverse expressive activities,
to include religious expression, and recognizes that through inclusion we are a better military and
stronger nation for it.” In light of their ongoing violations of the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution (as detailed in Enclosure 1), and their actions both in rejecting my own diverse
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page5of37 PagelD 8142

expressive activities and in excluding me from public discourse, each of these Navy assertions
appear to be proven false.

The Navy has committed to posting a training presentation on its website for three years that
teaches the importance of accommodating religious practices. However, service officials have not
committed to requiring any Navy leaders to actually take this training. Even the individuals most
responsible for violating class members’ rights (including Rear Admiral Waters) are not required to
take this training.

In light of the ongoing violations of the First Amendment, these gestures are meaningless at
best, and at worst, they are permitting the Defendants to get away with further projecting false
narratives.

Fairness Hearing
I will not be able to appear at the Fairness Hearing. Please consider this objection in its

entirety in making a ruling both on this settlement and on the need to continue this case that has
become so critical to Military Jurisprudence related to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

DE 3 July 2024

Robert A. Green Jr.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page 6of37 PagelD 8143

1 July 2024
From: Commander Robert A. Green Jr., USN/1117
To: Admiral James W. Kilby, USN
Via: (1) Commander, United States Fleet Forces Command
(2) Rear Admiral James P. Waters, USN
(3) Rear Admiral Jeffrey Czerewko, USN

Subj: COMPLAINT OF WRONG UNDER ARTICLE 1150, U.S. NAVY REGULATIONS,
AGAINST REAR ADMIRAL JAMES P. WATERS

Ref: (a) Article 1150, U.S. Navy Regulations
(b) JAGINST 5800.7G, CH-2, Chapter II
(c) SECNAVINST 5800.12C
(d) 42 USC § 1983
Encl: (1) Screenshot demonstrating that Respondent’s government X[Twitter] account,
@USNRectuiter, blocked Complainant’s private X[Twitter] account, @RobGreen1010
(2) U.S. Navy Biography, Rear Admiral James Waters III, Director, Military Personnel
Plans and Policy Division, N13, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations
(3) Complaint of Wrong Under Art 1150, U.S. Navy Regulations Against Vice Admiral
Nowell for Unlawful Religious Discrimination, 23 Dec 2021
1. This complaint of wrong under reference (a) is submitted in compliance with reference (b).
2. Complainant Information:
a. Current Command: United States Fleet Forces Command
b. Command at time of alleged wrong: United States Fleet Forces Command

c. PRD: April, 2027

Current mailing address and e-mail address

e. Permanent home address and email address:

3. Respondent Information:
a. Rank and Name: Rear Admiral James P. Waters, USN

b. Organization: Commander, Navy Recruiting Command

Enclosure (1)
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page 7of37 PagelD 8144

4. Complaint:

a. Type of Alleged Wrong: Unlawful deprivation of Complainant’s constitutional rights
under the First Amendment of the Constitution, Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and
Violation of Respondent’s oath to the Constitution.

(1) Date alleged wrong discovered: 26 June, 2024

(2) Date written request for redress was submitted to complainant’s commanding
officer: N/A ,

(3) Date answer to request for redress was received: N/A

(4) Number of calendar days between alleged wrong and submission of complaint: 5
days

(5) Specific, detailed explanation of alleged wrong committed:

As one of the People and a citizen of the United States, I have a right to freely express my
views, particularly ones that relate to the running of our government, its executive branch agencies,
and its military departments. As Commander of Navy Recruiting Command, Rear Admiral James
Waters maintains a public-facing X [Twitter] account. Under his authority, this account represents
the official Navy position and narrative concerning recruiting for service in the United States
Navy. After pointing out a number of programmatic failures related to recruiting and rebuilding
trust with the American people, I was blocked from viewing or commenting on any post made by
Rear Admiral James Waters’ Navy Recruiting Command X [Twitter] Account. (Encl 1)

This action, taken under the color of law, and within the authority of an executive branch
agency, deprived me of my right to free speech, which I retain as one of the People, and which is
explicitly protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Rear Admiral James Waters
violated the law as promulgated in 42 U.S.C. § 1983, deprived me of my inalienable rights
guaranteed by the First Amendment, and, in so doing, violated his own Oath to the Constitution.

The @USNRecruiter X [Twitter] account is not Rear Admiral Waters’ private account.
Rather, it is an official Government account under Rear Admiral Waters’ control with which he
promulgates Navy narratives, inviting the public to interact with the page. I am a member of the
public, and, because there can be no military exclusion for constitutional protections, I retain the
right to free speech as one of the People. Through use of frequent messaging Rear Admiral Waters
develops and implements a narrative to sway the opinion of the American people. As confirmed by
the Supreme Court case O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, 601 U.S._(2024), the deprivation of a
citizen’s first amendment rights from a government-controlled social media account is not
permitted under law. Therefore, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Rear Admiral James Waters
can be held liable in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceedings for redress.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident for Rear Admiral James Waters. Before

taking command of Navy Recruiting Command, Rear Admiral Waters was the Director, Military
Personnel Plans and Policies (OPNAV N13) working directly for Vice Admiral John B. Nowell

Enclosure (1)
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page 8of3/7 PagelD 8145

(OPNAV N1). In this role, which Rear Admiral Waters held from April 2021 to March of 2024, he
oversaw the OPNAV N131 Religious Accommodation Review Team. (Encl 2)

Under Rear Admiral Waters’ watch, the OPNAV N131 Religious Accommodation Review
Team developed and executed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to issue a template denial to
each Religious Accommodation Request submitted by Navy sailors without doing the
individualized review required by law and military regulation. While Vice Admiral Nowell was
the one providing final disapprovals on each religious accommodation requested, it was Rear
Admiral Waters who was most closely involved in leading the Religious Accommodation Review
Team, through whom he prepared each disapproval recommendation for Vice Admiral Nowell.
(Encl 3)

The actions taken by Rear Admiral Waters and his team were so flagrant that they became
the cornerstone evidence in the SEALs v. Biden federal lawsuit over religious liberty in the United
States Navy. That evidence, detailed in Exhibit 1 of SEALs v. Biden Motion For Class Certification
Document 134, demonstrated that the standardized religious accommodation requests and appeals
passed through Rear Admiral Waters’ office multiple times before ultimately being denied by both
Vice Admiral Nowell and Admiral Gilday. The SOP provided to the court shows Rear Admiral
Waters’ personal office code (N13) listed approximately 10 separate times. His name, listed as “J.
P. Waters,” is also clearly shown in both Step 33 and Step 39 of the SOP, as demonstrated in court
documents. (Encl 3)

The Court saw this matter similarly and issued a 3 Jan 2022 injunction against the Navy,
precluding them from involuntarily separating 35 Navy Special Operators. In his ruling, Judge
O’Connor stated that:

“TW]e do not ask [service members] to lay aside their citizenry and give up
the very rights they have sworn to protect... The COVID-19 pandemic provides the
government no license to abrogate those freedoms. There is no COVID-19
exception to the First Amendment. There is no military exclusion from our
Constitution.” (SEALs v. Biden, Case 4:21-cv-01236-O, Doc 66)

Two months later, the Court saw fit to expand this case into a class action for all Navy
service members who had filed religious accommodation requests and who had not already been
involuntarily separated subsequent to the actions of Rear Admiral Waters, Vice Admiral Nowell,
and Admiral Gilday. The Judge took the extraordinary measure of granting a class-wide
preliminary injunction based on the substantial threat of irreparable harm being done by the Navy
and a substantial likelihood that the Navy class-members case would succeed on the merits. The
Judge also noted that the Navy’s actions demonstrated “a pattern of disregard for RFRA [Religious
Freedom Restoration Act] rights.” (SEALs v. Biden, Case 4:21-cv-01236-O, Doc 140)

Rear Admiral James P. Waters contributed significantly to this pattern of disregard for the
law, for service members’ rights, and for the U.S. Constitution. His disregard for the First
Amendment rights of Navy sailors directly contributed to the unlawful removal of hundreds of
exemplary Navy sailors from service to the nation, exacerbating a national recruiting crisis and
adding significant risk to our Navy’s warfighting readiness.

Enclosure (1)
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page9of 3/7 PagelD 8146

Rear Admiral Waters’ actions directly led to more than 4,000 Navy service members
engaging in legal action against the Navy as part of this class action lawsuit. His actions, and the
actions of Navy leadership, led to a ruling confirming the violations of law. This entire episode has
been a national embarrassment for the Navy, has contributed to a significant loss of trust with the
American people, and has compounded the military recruiting crisis. Rather than hold Rear
Admiral Waters accountable for his actions, Navy leadership saw fit to promote him to a command
position of sacred trust, a position which American families should be particularly interested in
because it plays a significant role in building trust for the sake of recruiting.

Navy leadership has deliberately chosen not to correct their strategic blunders over the
COVID-19 mandates or put any real efforts into ending First Amendment violations in the Navy.
These decisions, and the decision to continue to promote Rear Admiral Waters in spite of his
abuses and usurpations, have only served to reinforce our senior leaders’ disregard for the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment to the Constitution. These decisions
enabled Rear Admiral Waters to go on committing additional violations of service member’s First
Amendment rights (as seen in Encl 1). Rear Admiral Waters has demonstrated a pattern of
constitutional violations, and rather than deter these actions, Navy leadership has elected to support
and promote him.

Through his actions and his violation of my First Amendment rights, Rear Admiral Waters
has harmed me personally, and caused irreparable injury. As ruled by the Supreme Court, the “loss
of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes
irreparable injury.” (Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373; 1976)

(6) I respectfully request that the proper authority take the following actions required
to redress this matter:

1. Immediately restore my access to review and comment on all
government controlled social media including the Navy Recruiting
Command X [Twitter] account.

2. Immediately cease all unlawful and discriminatory violations of the
First Amendment of the Constitution.

3. Hold Rear Admiral Waters accountable for his actions, both for the
sake of Justice and to curb his pattern of violating the constitutional
rights of service members. Actions should include but are not limited
to:

a. Relieve Rear Admiral Waters from Command of Navy
Recruiting Command.

b. Detach Rear Admiral Waters for cause, and initiate show

cause proceedings to determine if should be removed from
the Naval Service.

Enclosure (1)
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page 10of37 PagelD 8147

c. Ifremoved from the Naval Service, initiate a Grade
Determination to determine at what rank Rear Admiral
Waters last served honorably, and at what rank he may be
eligible for retirement income.

4. Route this complaint in full compliance with JAGINST 5800.7G
0305 (f) requiring the Respondent to write a response within ten (10)
calendar days of receipt and “provide the complainant with a copy of
the response”.

5. Route this complaint in full compliance with JAGINST 5800.7G
0305 (g) requiring each intermediate endorser to forward the
complaint with their endorsement within ten (10) calendar days and
“provide the complainant with copies of their endorsements.”

5. ICERTIFY THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF
MY KNOWLEDGE, AND THIS COMPLAINT IS SUBMITTED PER THE GUIDELINES
AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS IN CHAPTER II, MANUAL OF THE JUDGE
ADVOCATE GENERAL.

SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT: y ZA yA Sue Date:_1 July 2024

SIGNATURE OF WITNESS: i} sone Meee Date:_1 July 2024

PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT

1. Authority. 10 U.S.C. §§ 938, 8013.

2. Principal purpose(s). Used by command authorities and the Office of the Judge Advocate
General to review, take action, and make recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy on Article
138, UCMJ, and Article 1150, U.S. Navy Regulations, complaints of Wrong.

3. Routine uses. The Blanket Routine Uses that appear at the beginning of the Department of the
Navy's compilation in the Federal Register apply.

4. Mandatory or voluntary disclosure and effect on individual not providing information, Providing

requested information is voluntary; however, failure to do so may result in delayed command
action and Secretarial review, or the inability to notify complainant of the Secretary's decision.

Enclosure (1)
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page11of37 PagelD 8148

Screenshot demonstrating that Respondent’s government X[Twitter] account, @USNRecruiter, blocked
Complainant’s private X[Twitter] account, @RobGreen1010 (Identified on 26 June 2024)

nus NAVY

Navy Recruiting honneng

@USNRecruiter blocked

Enclosure (2)
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 tye Page 12 of 37 PagelD 8149
RIC A'S

ee NAVY

Rear Admiral James Waters III

Director, Military Personnel Plans and Policy Division, N13, Office
of the Chief of Naval Operations

Rear Adm. James Waters is a native of Ellington, Connecticut,
and graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1989
with a degree in Systems Engineering. He completed graduate
studies at Oxford University in 1991.

His sea tours include various division officer assignments on
USS Henry M. Jackson (SSBN 7306), engineering officer on USS
Philadelphia (SSN 690) and executive officer on USS Alabama
(SSBN 731B). He commanded USS Virginia (SSN 774) and
Submarine Squadron 4.

His staff assignments include operations officer at Submarine

Squadron 2, engineer at Submarine Squadron 3, submarine

executive officer detailer, deputy commander of Submarine
Squadron 1, battle watch commander and chief of staff for U.S.
Strategic Command's Director of Global Operations (J3), CNO
Strategic Studies Group 35, and as deputy executive director for the Chief of Naval Personnel.

As a flag officer, his tours include director, Maritime Headquarters, U.S. Pacific Fleet, commander,
Submarine Group 2 in Norfolk, Virginia and is currently serving as director, military personnel plans and
policy, OPNAV (N13).

His decorations include the Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal,
Navy-Marine Corps Commendation Medal, Navy-Marine Corps Achievement Medal, and various other
individual, unit, campaign and service awards. He is most proud of those awards that reflect the hard work

and success of the many teams he has been privileged to serve.

Enclosure (3)
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page13o0f37 PagelD 8150
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 134 Filed 02/28/22 Page 10of160 PagelD 4446

From:
To:
Via:

23 Dec 21
Commander Robert A. Green Jr., USN/1117
Chief of Naval Operations
(1) Commander, Maritime Expeditionary Security Squadron EIGHT
(2) Vice Admiral John B. Nowell
(3) Commander, United States Fleet Forces Command
(4) Commander, Navy Expeditionary Combat Command
(5) Commander, Maritime Expeditionary Security Group TWO

Subj: COMPLAINT OF WRONG UNDER ARTICLE 1150, U.S. NAVY REGULATIONS

Ref:

Encl:

(a) Article 1150, U.S. Navy Regulations

(b) JAGINST 5800.7G, Chapter III

(c) SECDEF Memo of 24 Aug 2021, Mandatory Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination of
Department of Defense Service Members

(d) SECNAV WASHINGTDON DC 302126Z Aug 21(ALNAV 062/21)

(e) CNO WASHINGTON DC 311913Z Aug 21 (NAVADMIN 190/21)

(f) 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1

(g) DOD Instruction 1300.17, Religious Liberty in the Military Services

(h) BUPERSINST 1730.11a, Standards and Procedures Governing the Accommodation of
Religious Practices

(1) DCNO (N1) Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), Religious Accommodations SOP Nov 2021
(2) DCNO (N1) Disapproval of Religious Accommodation Through Waiver of Immunization
Requirements, To CDR Robert A Green Jr., 23 Nov 21

1. This complaint of wrong under reference (a) is submitted in compliance with reference (b).

2. Complainant Information:

a. Current Command: Maritime Expeditionary Security Squadron EIGHT
b. Command at time of alleged wrong: Maritime Expeditionary Security Squadron EIGHT

c. PRD: August, 2022

d. Current mailing address and e-mail address:
e. Permanent home address and email address:

robert.a.green! @navy.mil

3. Respondent Information:

a. Rank and Name: Vice Admiral John Nowell, USN

b. Organization: Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (N1)

Pls.' Mot. for Classwide Prelim. Inj. App. 0007
Enclosure (4)

1
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page 14 of 37 PagelD 8151
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 134 Filed 02/28/22 Page 11of160 PagelD 4447

4. Complaint:

a. Type of Alleged Wrong: Denial of complainant’s Constitutional rights under the First and Fifth
Amendments through a violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1, DODINST 1300.17, and
BUPERSINST 1730.11A.

(1) Date alleged wrong discovered: 29 November, 2021

(2) Date written request for redress was submitted to complainant’s commanding officer:
N/A

(3) Date answer to request for redress was received: N/A
(4) Number of calendar days between alleged wrong and submission of complaint: 24 days
(5) Specific, detailed explanation of alleged wrong committed:

On 15 September 2021, I submitted a request to waive COVID-19 immunization requirements due
to my religious beliefs that preclude me from receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. I submitted an addendum
to that request on 19 October 2021. The Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (DCNO)(N1), Vice Admiral
Nowell, signed and dated a disapproval of my request on 23 November 2021.

My religious accommodation request was processed by the OPNAV N131 Religious
Accommodation team. Enclosure (1) is the Standard Operating Procedure (hereafter DCNO(N1) SOP) that
Vice Admiral Nowell and his staff followed to handle the vast increase in COVID-19 related immunization
waiver requests resulting from the various military COVID-19 vaccine orders, references (c) through (e).
The DCNO(N1) SOP instructs OPNAV N131 staffers on the exact steps to take upon receipt of a religious
accommodation request including computer screenshots that demonstrate what lines of text to write and
what buttons to click. The DCNO(N1) SOP is broken down into 6 phases, complete with 50 total steps.
Many of the steps are fairly innocuous such as Phase 0 Step 2 which requires the staffer to “[rJeply all to the
[accommodation request] email and acknowledge receipt of the request with the following response:”
Several of the DCNO(N1) SOP steps, however, are not innocuous and provide clear evidence of violations
of law per 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1, and regulations per DODINST 1300.17 and BUPERSINST 1730.11A. I
will demonstrate in this complaint that I have been wronged by Vice Admiral Nowell’s violations of law
and regulations through his use of the DCNO(N1) SOP process in denying my request for religious
accommodation. Specifically, I will use the DCNO(N1) SOP to demonstrate 1) that the disapproval of my
religious accommodation request was pre-determined, 2) that the letter Vice Admiral Nowell sent
disapproving my religious accommodation request was a form template, and 3) that the case-by-case review
of my request required by law and regulation was a fraud designed to have the appearance of following
regulation but was actually conducted after my disapproval letter was written, all DCNO(N1)
documentation supporting my disapproval was packaged, and all intermediate routing steps of my religious
accommodation request was completed.

The first 13 steps of the DCNO(N1) SOP are preparation steps in which the OPNAV N131 staffer
verifies that the request has all of the required documents and that those documents are moved to the
appropriate folder on the shared drive. Ifthe religious accommodation request does have all of the proper
documents, then astonishingly, the very first processing step a staffer makes is to add the disapproval
template to the folder and to rename the disapproval template file to include the Last Name, First Name,
and Rank of the religious accommodation requester. This is done in Step 14.

2

Pls.' Mot. for Classwide Prelim. Inj. App. 0008
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page 15of37 PagelD 8152
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 134 Filed 02/28/22 Page 12 of 160 PagelD 4448

The very next step, Step 15 on page 7, asks the staffer to open the disapproval template and update
the “TO:” line with the requester’s Name, Rank, and Designator. DCNO(N1) SOP Step 15 also shows a
picture of the disapproval template complete with highlighted portions to indicate what must be replaced
with the requester’s information in order to prepare the disapproval for routing. There is no approval
template mentioned in the SOP. In fact, there is no indication that an approval template has ever been
written. I found it shocking that Vice Admiral Nowell permits a process so riddled with systemic religious
discrimination that my request was not even reviewed before a disapproval letter was added, tailored to
include my name, and only then was routed for review.

The next several steps of the DCNO(N1) SOP direct the OPNAV N131 staffer to prepare the
religious accommodation package for routing within their document routing system. Step 20 lists who must
review the religious accommodation request including BUMED (Rear Admiral Gillingham), Policy and
Strategy (N0975), the Officer Plans and Policy Office, the Special Assistant for Legal Matters, N1 Fleet
Master Chief, Total Force Manpower and Personnel Plans and Policy (N13 Front Office), and finally
Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Education (N1 Front Office). I felt betrayed to know that my religious
accommodation request went to these offices for review with a pre-prepared disapproval letter already
included within the package.

Once routing/review is completed by the above offices, the OPNAV N131 staffer begins to package
groups of religious accommodation requests together for final signature. This is done in Steps 30 through
32. Step 33 directs the OPNAV N131 staffer to update an internal memo from N13 to Vice Admiral
Nowell. This internal memo asks Vice Admiral Nowell to “sign TABs A1 through A10, letters
disapproving immunization waiver requests based on sincerely held religious beliefs.” TAB B lists all
supporting documents including the original religious accommodation request from the requester. It is clear
from the DCNO(N1) SOP that all TAB A letters are the same disapproval template letters prepared by the
OPNAYV N131 staffers in Step 15 immediately upon receipt of the initial religious accommodation request.

Steps 35-38 list the first time an OPNAV N131 staffer is asked to actually read through the
religious accommodation request and begin to list details from the request in a spreadsheet for Vice
Admiral Nowell’s “review”. There is a note in ALL CAPS which emphasizes the importance of this review
to building the fagade that the religious accommodation requests are receiving a case-by-case examination,
The note states: “THIS IS THE MOST CRITICAL STEP IN THE ENTIRE PROCESS AND THE CNO
AND CNP ARE RELYING ON YOU TO ENSURE THAT YOUR REVIEW IS THOUROUGH AND
ACCURATE. DO NOT RUSH THIS PROCESS AND ENSURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND BEFORE
MOVING FORWARD.” This step is critical to disguising the systemic religious discrimination within the
DCNOV(N1) SOP process because according to reference (h) they are required to review each request “on a
case-by-case basis, giving consideration to the full range of facts and circumstances relevant to the specific
request.” Reference (h) goes on to state that “[r]equests to accommodate religious practices should not be
approved or denied simply because similar requests were approved or denied.” The most significant
problem with the DCNO(N1) SOP is that the case-by-case “review” does not happen until Step 35 in the
process. By this point, my disapproval letter had already been written (Step 15), my religious
accommodation request and related documents had already been returned from the various required
reviewing offices (Steps 16-29), my disapproval and religious accommodation request had already been
packaged within a batch of other similar requests (Steps 30-32), and, finally, an internal memo had already
been drafted from DCNO (N13) to DCNO (N1) requesting that Vice Admiral Nowell disapprove my
religious accommodation request (Step 33). All this occurred prior to the official “review” of my religious
accommodation request required by law and regulation.

After my entire disapproval package was built and then prepared for Vice Admiral Nowell to sign,

the DCNO(N1) SOP Steps 35-38 finally direct the OPNAV N131 staffer to read the entirety of my religious
accommodation request package including my original request, the BUMED Memo, and the Legal Memo.

3

Pls.' Mot. for Classwide Prelim. Inj. App. 0009
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page 16of37 PagelD 8153
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 134 Filed 02/28/22 Page 13 of 160 PagelD 4449

They are then directed to add any additional pertinent information from the package and place that
information into a spreadsheet. This spreadsheet is evidence, not of a true case-by-case review of the
religious accommodation request, because the result at this point in the DCNO(N1) SOP process, is a
forgone conclusion. This spreadsheet is evidence instead of the systematic and deliberate attempts taken by
Vice Admiral Nowell and his staff to appear compliant with regulatory requirements while actually
depriving me of my rights to due process under the Fifth Amendment and my rights to freedom of religious
expression under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

In addition to fraudulently attempting to appear legal and in compliance with regulation, it is
plainly clear that the DCNO(N1) SOP process is also designed to streamline the subsequent (and pre-
determined) disapproval upon receipt of a religious accommodation request. The DCNO(N1) SOP,
especially Step 35, makes it clear that the secondary goal (after streamlining the pre-determined
disapproval), is to protect Vice Admiral Nowell from potential legal blowback in the event he is asked for
proof that a case-by-case review was completed for each religious accommodation request. Even though
the DCNO(N1) SOP is blatantly defying requirements under both law and regulation, in my personal
disapproval letter, enclosure (2), Vice Admiral Nowell made the statement that “[a]ll requests for
accommodation of religious practices are assessed on a case-by-case basis.” Vice Admiral Nowell goes on
to state that “[i]n making this decision, I reviewed reference (g) [my religious accommodation request],
including the endorsements from your chain of command, the local chaplain and the advice of Chief,
Bureau of Medicine and Surgery in reference (h).” While the DCNO(N1) SOP cannot prove that Vice
Admiral Nowell is lying in making this last statement, enclosure (1) does prove that any review of my
religious accommodation request that Vice Admiral Nowell may or may not have conducted, had no
bearing on my discriminatory and pre-determined disapproval which he signed on 23 November, 2021.

Vice Admiral Nowell and his staff are ignoring the requirements of both the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act and DODINST 1300.17. The requirements under law, per reference (f), and the
requirements of policy, per reference (g), oblige the Navy to accommodate my religious freedom unless 1)
the military policy, practice, or duty is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and 2) it is the
least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. Both references (f) and (g) also
place the burden of proof for the compelling governmental interest and least restrictive means “upon the
DoD Component and not upon the individual requesting the exemption.” In denying my request, as
demonstrated throughout both enclosures (1) and (2), Vice Admiral Nowell failed to prove a compelling
governmental interest. In fact, Vice Admiral Nowell denied my request using a disapproval template and
relied upon a BUMED Memo which was also a preprepared template. Neither the disapproval template
used by Vice Admiral Nowell, nor the BUMED template used by Rear Admiral Gillingham, addressed in
any way the overwhelming evidence I provided in my original religious accommodation request from 15
September 2021, and my addendum from 19 October 2021.

Vice Admiral Nowell has violated both law and regulation in utilizing the discriminatory process
established in the DCNO(N1) SOP. This process attempts to circumvent established standards required by
both law and regulation while attempting to hide unlawful actions behind an intentionally designed facade
meant to wrongfully appear compliant with regulatory standards. The discriminatory process used by Vice
Admiral Nowell to disapprove my religious accommodation request has caused me personal detriment by
denying me my right to due process under the Fifth Amendment and my right to freedom of religious
expression under the First Amendment of the Constitution. The process used by Vice Admiral Nowell to
review religious accommodation requests must be brought into compliance with law and regulation
immediately before more sailors are harmed.

I have deep concerns that this complaint, detailing the discriminatory disapproval process for
religious accommodations in the Navy, will not be properly address and will instead be ignored and
dismissed. Due to these concerns | intend to copy this communication to both the House and Senate Armed

4

Pls.' Mot. for Classwide Prelim. Inj. App. 0010
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page17of3/7 PagelD 8154
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 134 Filed 02/28/22 Page 14 of 160 PagelD 4450

Services Committees in the hope that this will ensure that all unlawful religious discrimination in the Navy
is properly addressed. | also remind reviewers of this complaint that this is a protected communication
under 10 U.S.C. 1034 and its implementing regulations.

(6) As redress I respectfully request that you immediately cease the unlawful and
discriminatory review process for Navy Religious Accommodations and that you rescind
my disapproval and all such disapprovals executed to date. I also request that you re-
review each such religious accommodation request in accordance with law and
regulation, including meeting the government’s burden of proof as required by 42 U.S.C.
2000bb-1 and DODINST 1300.17.

5. ICERTIFY THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE, AND THIS COMPLAINT IS SUBMITTED PER THE GUIDELINES AND
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS IN CHAPTER III, MANUAL OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE

GENERAL.
SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT” Mie fs Date: /A/AS/2/
a
SIGNATURE OF WITNESS: li phew Date;_3clee 2
F
VA
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT

1. Authority. 10 U.S.C, §§ 938, 8013.

2. Principal purpose(s). Used by command authorities and the Office of the Judge Advocate General to
review, take action, and make recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy on Article 138, UCMJ, and
Article 1150, U.S. Navy Regulations, complaints of Wrong.

3. Routine uses. The Blanket Routine Uses that appear at the beginning of the Department of the Navy's
compilation in the Federal Register apply.

4. Mandatory or voluntary disclosure and effect on individual not providing information. Providing
requested information is voluntary; however, failure to do so may result in delayed command action and
Secretarial review, or the inability to notify complainant of the Secretary's decision.

Pls.' Mot. for Classwide Prelim. Inj. App. 0011
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page18of37 PagelD 8155
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 134 Filed 02/28/22 Page 15 of 160 PagelD 4451

Religious Accommodations

Background: On 22 January 2014, SECDEF released a new DoDI (see TAB A) changing the way
requests for religious accommodation would be routed and reviewed. Previously, Commanding Officers
had the authority to approve or deny requests for religious accommodation. There was no consistency
and some Commanding Officers did not significantly evaluate the request. The DoDI transferred the
decision authority for all requests for religious accommodation that fall outside current uniform and
grooming standards as well as Navy policy to CNP. In order to ensure each request is given due
consideration, the DoDI instructs CNP to view each request in its entirety. Each request is evaluated on a
case by case basis. For example, a request from an operational member to grow a beard may be denied,
while the same request made by a Sailor on shore duty could be approved. Whatever the decision, it is
only valid while the Sailor’s circumstances remain the same. If the Sailor executes PCS orders or the
nature of the Sailor’s work changes significantly, a new request will have to be routed. The Sailor must
abide by current Navy standards and policy while the request is being adjudicated. Reservists also fall
under this instruction. They are required to submit their requests via the same channels as active duty.

Step-by-Step Instructions
Phase 0 (Steps 1 ~ 5)

1. N131 receives Religious Accommodation (RA) requests via a functional email distro,
ALTN Navy Religious Accommodations@navy.mil. The inbox only reliably receives email
from NMCI email addresses, so submitters are encouraged to send an email without an encrypted
endorsement first to ensure communication is received. Here is an example of an email requesting

consideration of an RA:

| |
ly
| | Religious Accommodation Request ICO ATAN Alazzawi CNATTU LeMoore

Te Wavy Rolgiows Accommodations

© You reptied to this message on 7/9/2021 9:24 PM

we} pdf File | jpq File

Submitted for your review and consideration

Thank youl

VR.

PRIVACY ACT NOTICE: This Communication may contain privdeged of other offchal information. if you ate not the intended recipkent cr bekeve that you have recetved this Communteation ta
error, please reply to the sender indicating that fact and delete
the copy you received. It ls a vioation of Federal law to print, copy, retransmit, Cisserinate, or otherwise use this informaton.

Pls.' Mot. for Classwide Prelim. Inj. App. 0012
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page 20 of 37 PagelD 8157
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 134 Filed 02/28/22 Page17 of 160 PagelD 4453

6. Open the RA Tracker located on the shared drive at N131 > N131D > 2N131D23 RA Tracker >
Data tab. Add the new request to the bottom of the spreadsheet and ensure there are no duplicate
entries. Fill in all vacant fields using the Original request as the authoritative data source

7. Move the file to the Phase 1 - Initial Intake\Phase 1 - Immunizations\00 Initial Drop Off folder.

BUPERS_ALTN_N45997_N13 (\\naeawnydfs101v.nadsusea.nads.navy.mi\cs0225) (Z:) » N131 >» N131D > 2N131D22 RA Adjudications » Phase 1-Initsl Intake » Phase 1- Immunizations > 00 Initial Drop Off

“A Neme Date modified Type Size
|A2 11/2/2021 11:42 PM File folder
Lor 11/1/2021 621 PM File folder
2 11/2/2021 11:46 PM File folder
| Sic 11/2/2021 11:47 PM File folder |

8. Open the original request to ensure the following are included IAW BUPERSINST 1730.11A and

MILPERSMAN 1730-020: (Appeals only require member’s request and command endorsement)
a. Member’s Request

b. Command Endorsement (+Second Endorsement if not an O-6 Command)
c. Chaplain Memo

d. Chaplain Checklist

Page 13 (Immunizations Only)

3 Pls.' Mot. for Classwide Prelim. Inj. App. 0014
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page 27of37 PagelD 8164
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 134 Filed 02/28/22 Page 24 of 160 PagelD 4460

20. Under Responders, is where you designate who reviews the tasker and their respective deadlines.
e. Due Dates will automatically be populated based on the 7-day deadline;
i. BUMED (SECRETARIAT - TASKER GROUP) (BUMED (FRONT OFFICE))
ii. POLICY AND STRATEGY (N0975 TASKER GROUP)
iii, SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR LEGAL MATTERS (CNP LEGAL FRONT
OFFICE)
iv. Nl FLEET MASTER CHIEF (N1 FLEET)

Responders

1 Responder “BUMED (SECRETARIAT - TASKER GROUP) (BUIMED (FRONT OFFICE))
2 Responder “POLICY AND STRATEGY (N0975 TASKER GROUP)
3 Responder “OFFICER PLANS AND POLICY OFFICE (N131)
| 4 Responder “SPECIALASSISTANT FOR LEGAL MATTERS (CNP LEGAL FRONT OFFICE)
5
6

Responder *N1 FLEET MASTER CHIEF (N1 FLEET)
5 Responder *TOTAL FORCE MANPOWERAND PERSONNEL PLANS AND POLICY (N13 it

FRONT OFFICE)
| 7 Responder *MANPOWER, PERSONNEL. TRAINING AND EDUCATION (Ni FRONT OFFICE) tg

21. In the Attachments section, select Add Attachment > Add Local Files > then select and categorize
the following files:
f. 1-RA Response Letter ICO Last First RANK (Organizational Response)
g. 2-RA Request ICO Last First RANK (Original Source Document)

Attachments

gp Add Attachment

File Namo and Votsion Doscription “Category Document Dato

10 Pls.' Mot. for Classwide Prelim. Inj. App. 0021
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page 29o0f37 PagelD 8166
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 134 Filed 02/28/22 Page 26 of 160 PagelD 4462

24. You must periodically check the status of the by going to your Inbox > Awaiting Responses. The
taskers can be sorted by tasker number, subject, due date, etc. By clicking on a tasker, you can see
where the tasker is in the process in the Tasker Details window,

& Tasker Management Thutet A
bho Responder Views
fet Delegated Responses |

25. Retrieve legal memos from the following folder: RA Adjudications\New Legal Memo Dropoff
and add to the folder.

26. Once a response by BUMED populates, download the BUMED Memo to the member’s folder.
Ensure the name and date of member’s request are accurate (if not correct send back for rework).

12 Pls.' Mot. for Classwide Prelim. Inj. App. 0023
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page 30 of 37 .PagelD 8167
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 134 Filed 02/28/22 Page 27 of 160 PagelD 4463

27. Update Date/Serial in Ref H on the Response Letter (1 - Response Letter ICO Last, First RANK)

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
cen

1730
Ser N1/

From: Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Manpower, Personnel, Training and Education) (N1)
To: RATE/RANK (DESIG) First MI Last, USN
Via: Commanding Officer, PCU HYMAN G. RICKOVER (SSN 795)

Subj: REQUEST FOR RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION THROUGH WAIVER OF
IMMUNIZATION REQUIREMENTS

Ref: (a) 42 U.S.C. §2000bb-1
(kL Dol Instruction 1300.17 of 1 September 2020
(c) SECNAVINST 1730.8B
(d) ASN (M&RA) memo of 6 June 13
(e) MILPERSMAN 1730-020
(f) United States Attomey General memo of 6 October 17
(g) Your lt, of 20 Dec 20 w/ends
(h) BUMED Itr 6320 Ser. M44/21UMXXXXX of dd Mam

1. Pursuant to references (a) through (h), your request for religious accommodation through
waiver of immunization requirements is disapproved. You must receive all required vaccines.
However, you are free to request from your healthcare provider alternative vaccines that are
available and meet the Navy’s immunization requirements, as determined by a credentialed
military healthcare provider. You are free to choose which COVID-19 vaccine to take. If you
choose a COVID-19 vaccine that requires two doses, you must receive your first does within five
calendar (5) days upon receipt of this letter and complete the series as prescribed. If you choose a
one-dose vaccine you must meet the established vaccination timeline or receive the vaccine
within five calendar (5) days upon receipt of this letter, whichever is later. '

2. In line with references () through (d), I am designated as the approval authority for requests
for religious accommodation.

3. Reference (a), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), states that the Government
may substantially burden an individual’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that
application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest
and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Reference (b) incorporates the RFRA
and notes that the Government has a compelling interest in mission accomplishment, to include
military readiness, unit cohesion, good order and discipline, health and safety, on both individual
and unit levels, Additionally, unless it will have an adverse impact on mission accomplishment,

28. Once a tasker has been responded to by N0975, CNP LEGAL FRONT OFFICE, N1 FLEET, and
BUMED, send to the Phase 4 folder - 0 Ready For Processing / 00 Phase 3 Drop Off

< >» BUPERS_ALTN_N45997_N13 (\\r ydfs101v.nad: nads.navy.mil\cs022S) (Z:) » NI31 » NI31D » 2N131D22RA Adjudications » Phased - Ready for N131 Review

“A Name Date modified Type Size
| OReady For Processing ee 11/2/2021 8:17 PIA File folder
1 Awaiting LT 11/2/2021 8:11 PMA File folder

29. Do not forward unless all stakeholders have reviewed and following documents are in the folder:

a.

1 - RA Response Letter ICO Last First RANK
2 -RA Request ICO Last First RANK

3 - RA Legal Memo ICO Last First RANK
4-BUMED Memo ICO Last First RANK

5 - Original Email ICO Last First RANK

13 Pls.' Mot. for Classwide Prelim. Inj. App. 0024
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page 33o0f37 PagelD 8170
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 134 Filed 02/28/22 Page 30 o0f160 PagelD 4466

39,

40.

41,

42.

43.

44,

Open “TAB C - Coordination Page — Rank/Rate Last Name” to update the dates on the
coordination page to the current date of processing to match the folder. Save the changes.

COORDINATION PAGE
Sailor Request - Accommodation from MILPERSMAN 1730-020 to waive immunization
Tequirements.
DCNO NI Response — Disspproval (Metaber and Fleet Safety)
OPNAV (NO975) = LCDR, Deese (703) 695-3824 25 Sep 2h The interviewing
chaplain adequately advised the command on the requestor's sincerity and the religious nature of
their beliefs
OPNAVNIFLT = FLICMW.XKoshoffer (703) 604-2616 25Sep21 Concur’ No
equity for Officers :
OPNAVNIJAG CDRA. Leahy (703) 604-5804 25Sep2i Conkur
OPNAV (N131) CDR D. Cua (703) 604-5023 25Sep21 Concur

OPNAYV (N13) RADM J, P, Waters (703) 604-5040
OPNAY (NI) VADM John B. Nowell, Jr (703) 604.2748

Upon Completion of the file modification, move entire file to 4 - Ready for N131 Review\2
Awaiting N131 Review (LT Didawick) or 3 Awaiting N131 Review (CDR Cua) based on your
assigned reviewer identified on the organization chart.
Rename Folder and files with appropriate batch number

a. DD _MON_YY-I (1* Batch)

b. DD _MON_YY-2 (2™ Batch)

After Review from Phase 4 is complete, drop files in the following folder:
\\naeawnydfs 101v.nadsusea.nads.navy.mil\CS021$\BUPERS_ALTN_N45997_N1\COVID-19
RA

Link the spreadsheet in the folder to the locations by pressing CTRL+K on the word “here”

Email the N13 Front office that the folder is ready.

| | to. | [Katson, Mery Angela Sanabria CAPT USH OCNO Ni (USA)

Send |
| Subject [Ready for Review 2.Nov_21-2

Deputy,
Please see RA 2_Nov_21-2 at your earliest convenience here.

Vir

16 Pls.' Mot, for Classwide Prelim. Inj. App. 0027
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page 34of37 PagelD 8171
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 134 Filed 02/28/22 Page 31 of160 PagelD 4467

45. The request will be routed through the deputy to N13. Once a decision is made by N13, the N13
Administrative Assistant will update the Coordination Page and Buckslip then send the request to
N1 via email.

46. Once a final decision has been made on the request, N1 will return the signed TAB A — Response
Letter —RA ICO Rank/Rate Last Name.

47. N13 Front Office will save the letter in the Sailor’s RA Request folder as “DCNO Signed —
Rank/Rate Last Name RA” and a notification email will be sent to N131.

48. An email containing that letter is emailed to the Sailor via their command by replying to the
original email request.

one Neuer, Richard ALT USN COMNAYDIST WASH OC (USA) <richard a never mlOus navy nl
RE. Pertiel Aoprovel of Reigious KO SRGREYSEN GS. WILLIAMS

2) DCNO Sgned - SR we pd.
™| pitfie
YN2,
Plosse see the attached Relgiout Accommodation adjudeatios ICO 7
Verg Respectfully,
LT ich Newer, PHR

OPNAY NLB1 Officer Plans and Policy
(705) 604-5013

49. Update the RA Tracker workbook’s Data tab to reflect the dates of the process and
approval/disapproval.

50. Move the folder to RA Adjudications > 00 ARCHIVED REQUESTS.

« CS022$ > BUPERS_ALTN_N45997_N13 > N131 >» N131D > 2N131D22 RA Adjudications a)
aon Name Date madified Type Size
00 ARCHIVED REQUESTS 6/29/2021 9:43 AM File folder
7/9/2021 9:04 PM File folder
7/1/2021 11:46 AM File folder
7/9/2021 11:44 PM File folder
6/29/2021 5:30 PM File folder

17 Pls.' Mot. for Classwide Prelim. Inj. App. 0028
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page 35o0f37 PagelD 8172

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

AT CHATTANOOGA
TANJA BENTON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 1:22-cv-118
v. )
) Judge Atchley
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF )
TENNESSEE, INC., ) Magistrate Judge Lee
)
Defendant. )

JUDGMENT ORDER

This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried, and the
jury has rendered its verdict.

The jury found that Plaintiff, TANJA BENTON, proved by a preponderance of the
evidence that her refusal to receive the Covid vaccination was based upon a sincerely held religious
belief. The parties stipulated that the remaining elements of Plaintiff's claims were met and the
jury was so instructed. The jury further found that Defendant, BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF
TENNESSEE, INC., did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence either that it had offered a
reasonable accommodation to Plaintiff or that it could not reasonably accommodate the Plaintiffs
religious beliefs without undue hardship. Liability for Plaintiff's religious sewannedattens claims
is therefore established by the jury’s verdict.

Finally, the jury found that Plaintiff proved her entitlement to punitive damages by a
preponderance of the evidence. By separate verdict, the jury awarded punitive damages. The jury
awarded total damages to Plaintiff in the amount of $687,240.00, comprised of $177,240.00 in

back pay damages, $10,000.00 in compensatory damages, and, by separate verdict, $500,000.00

Case 1:22-cv-00118-CEA-SKL Document 94 Filed 06/28/24 Page 1 of 2 PagelD #: 2399
Enclosure (5)
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 287 Filed 07/09/24 Page 36o0f37 PagelD 8173

in punitive damages.
Accordingly, judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff TANJA BENTON and against
Defendant BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF TENNESSEE, INC. in the amount of $687,240.00

with post-judgment interest at the rate set by 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

SO ORDERED.
/s/Charles E. Atchley, Jr.
CHARLES E. ATCHLEY JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ENTERED AS A JUDGMENT

/s/ LeAnna Wilson
LeAnna Wilson
CLERK OF COURT

2
Case 1:22-cv-00118-CEA-SKL Document 94 Filed 06/28/24 Page 2 of 2 PagelD #: 2400


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.txnd.355696.287.0.pdf

Size

9,158,310 bytes

SHA-256

7ea49a79fbf2a12643a8d49354e502a6a144d56e96cd3fb38d624bca0293c5a2

Our copy

gov.uscourts.txnd.355696.287.0.pdf

Original

archive.org