Navy Doctor Retained After Bilecki Presents Medical Evidence; Incident Report Kept Out of OMPF

Navy Doctor Retained After Bilecki Presents Medical Evidence; Incident Report Kept Out of OMPF

June 2022

Naval Support Activity Bahrain

Navy Lieutenant Commander – O-4

Allegations: Refusal of the COVID-19 Vaccine

Facts

This was a Medical Corps Lieutenant Commander serving as a 5th Marine Expeditionary Brigade Surgeon at NSA Bahrain whose documented adverse vaccine reaction was rerouted into a Status In the Navy show cause process the chain of command never wanted in the first place.

The medical timeline mattered.

In spring 2021, after the first dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, our client suffered a severe inflammatory reaction with a subsequent opportunistic bacterial infection requiring approximately four days of hospitalization. The civilian discharge note advised against the second dose. The Senior Medical Officer at NSA Bahrain concurred. A medical waiver process followed.

In fall 2021, our client submitted an Unqualified Resignation Request from active duty.

The chain of command was on her side. The Convening General of Naval Amphibious Force, Task Force 51 / 5th MEB endorsed the resignation, recommending approval. The CG endorsement was direct: "In no way is [she] to blame for her decision to separate from the Navy. In fact, it is for the greater good of the Navy that she feels compelled to submit her resignation."

That recommendation went to NAVPERSCOM. NAVPERSCOM denied the UQR for failure to meet the minimum service requirement and overseas service obligation. The administrative track shifted. The CG's headquarters then transmitted an incident report to PERS-834 (Commander, Navy Personnel Command) framing the second-dose refusal as a fitness for duty referral. Under SECNAVINST 1920.6D, that filing put the matter into a Status In the Navy show cause for retention review.

A Navy O-4 Medical Corps officer with a CG endorsement supporting her separation, a documented adverse vaccine reaction, and a Senior Medical Officer's medical concurrence had to defend her continued service against the same chain that had supported her resignation.

Our client retained Bilecki in February 2022, after NAVPERSCOM's denial of the UQR rerouted the matter into the Status In the Navy show cause posture under SECNAVINST 1920.6D.

The defense argument to PERS-834 was that the second-dose refusal was a medical exemption issue, not a fitness for duty referral. The documented adverse reaction to the first dose and the Senior Medical Officer's concurrence against the second were the predicate facts. A Medical Corps officer following her own Senior Medical Officer's medical recommendation against a second dose, with a Convening General's endorsement on her resignation that the chain itself called "for the greater good of the Navy," was not the kind of officer the fitness for duty track exists to remove. The defense package put the medical record, the SMO concurrence, the CG's endorsement, and the documentary chain of command character record in front of PERS-834 as a single coherent submission.

The response came in June 2022.

In June 2022, PERS-834 issued the Status In the Navy letter. The first paragraph closed the show cause question: "Pursuant to reference (a), the Show Cause Authority determined the incident reported in reference (b) does not require you to show cause for retention in the naval service." The second paragraph kept the file off the record: "Neither reference (b) nor this letter will be filed into your official military personnel record."

The underlying incident report and the SIN letter stayed out of the Official Military Personnel File. That protected the officer from those two documents appearing in that personnel file. It did not erase the underlying events or determine what other records or disclosure requirements might apply.

Result: No show cause required for retention. Neither the SIN letter nor the underlying incident report filed in the OMPF. Career preserved.

---

FAQ

Q: What made this an issue worth fighting after the Navy denied her resignation?
The resignation denial did not answer the medical problem. She had been hospitalized after the first dose, and both the civilian discharge recommendation and her Senior Medical Officer opposed a second dose. Bilecki put those records beside the command’s favorable endorsement to show why this officer’s decision should not become a reason to force her out.

Q: What did the Navy ultimately decide?
The Show Cause Authority determined that she did not have to show cause for retention. Its letter also directed that neither the incident report nor the letter itself be filed in her official military personnel record. Those were two distinct results: she avoided the separation proceeding, and those two documents stayed out of her OMPF.