My journey in determining why the Navy violated our privacy and if it could happen again, did not begin with the intention to write a blog, or even an article. It started because I was confused and didn’t understand how and why our family’s privacy was violated by the Navy, over and over again. I wanted to understand.

The Navy has policy for PII, Privacy, Social Media, for not putting random and obscure thumb drives in your government computer, for body hair, for tattoos, for hairstyles, for writing articles as an Active Duty Service Member and *not* placing a DoD disclaimer atop it, for hair length, for make-up, for fingernails, for every single vaccine imaginable, for fraternization, for bullying, for uniform standards— so much that your socks may not fall down in your dress uniforms.

Even if one policy was overlooked, there are many that should have safeguarded our family from any invasion of privacy— unless the Navy wasn’t following DoD or Navy policy when it came to the NGSP…

Such policy preventing our pain would absolutely be SECNAVINST 5720.44C 14 OCT 2014 (pg 152, 7-6 (3)) This policy appears to have been written in 2012, prior to the inception of the NGSP. It was updated ”14 OCT 2014.”

I called the Navy Gold Star Program twice in May 2020, immediately following the discovery of the two posts. No one returned my calls. Colter’s call was promptly returned, but I didn’t rate a phone call back. (There is policy regarding this. It was a violation.)

The woman at the NGSP who was located at either CNIC HQ or Naval Air Station Patuxent River, (where our family was stationed on active duty orders,) told Colter that she wasn’t sure how the Tribute came about. She said that she didn’t find any information and sometimes when a Service Member hasn’t received a Tribute yet, the NGSP leverages "Google” to find information.

This is what we knew as we were knee deep in a pandemic, knee deep in a dark place in our marriage, and I found myself feeling alone and exhausted.

At the time, Colter was actively seeking a job as a civilian because his military orders were ending soon.The Tribute both on the NGSP website and Facebook were viewable to anyone who searched Colter. We had purchased a new home and it was under construction. Soon we would have amother fresh start in a new city. Soon I thought we could finally be an autonomous family without strangers, neighbors, future employers, future co-workers, Bradley’s friends’ parents, knowing an aspect of Colter’s life intimately without ever being welcomed in— without ever being close enough with us or Colter for him to share this information, when he felt it appropriate, if at all.

In June 2021, I reached out to the NGSP to learn why they violated our privacy and why Google was used to gather information for these posts.

In the response I received from the NGSP “Representative” she stated that she wasn’t sure why Colter was told Google was used. She said the NGSP received a Tribute from a family member of Allison’s. Her email created more questions for me. I wrote her back, she didn’t answer all of my questions. I emailed Public Affairs Officers with my questions. They did not respond. I researched what I could and submitted a Freedom Of Information Act Request for more information.

Three months later upon receipt of the FOIA documents, I was mad and perplexed.

The following is at the bottom of my June 2021 emails from the NGSP.

First of all— why doesn‘t this simple, clear, statement apply to the Navy Gold Star Program Employees in terms of what they post online? I am unsure. Currently, the only explanation would be, hypocrisy. I take this statement in my email quite seriously. Is it pertaining to me if I share information I received via email from a NGSP employee OR does it refer only to the employee sending the email? Secondly— when this same email chain from June 2021 with the NGSP was sent back to me via the FOIA, the woman’s name and title were blacked out. Colter's name was also blacked out (see below). These details that were blacked out were marked with “b(6)." This refers to exemption 6 and, “Protects information that would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of the individuals involved.

The Navy’s online story that began in 2009 had become so normalized and "socialized" that even the Navy seemed to just shrug off these privacy violations. Why?

Many of Allison’s friends and acquaintances joined her dedicated Facebook Tribute Group in the immediate years following her death. Other Aviators appear to join as they leave Active Duty and prepare for Civilian life. All Sailors upon leaving the Navy are required to take a TAPS class to guide them through this transition. Among the lessons taught, is the importance of networking. In response, Aviators seem to beef-up their online presence. Many join Tribute Group dedicated to Allison at this juncture. Then, they awkwardly reach out to Colter via LinkedIn to say they are thinking of him in the lead up to Memorial Day Weekend. It’s out of the blue. Colter doesn’t hear from them again. There is one Aviator who wrote on her tribute page that maybe it was a "Godwink" that he was skiing at Breckinridge when he found out about her crash, and low and behold he was there again skiing ten years later on the day she died. "Maybe it's a Godwink," he wrote. OR maybe you planned a trip for 2019 unaware that you would be there on the day she died, and once the remembrance became popular online and you realized it, you vainly thought that it was a “Godwink.” The social normalizing of the posts and what drives Aviators to this page to “remember” and “honor” perpetuates an awkward understanding of remembering and honoring. It creates a false perception of what our family should allow into our private life. We all know the old addage— just because everyone is doing it doesn’t mean you have to. Just because everyone is doing it, doesn’t make it right. The slickness of it all, the seemingly disingenuousness of it, makes me feel gross to let it in my safe space, to let it near my children. I don’t let it in, I protect my children from the ego masquerading as “remembrance.” Setting these boundaries is absolutely why I’ve been perceived as a villain. Just because others wish to appear patriotic on social media by putting on Colter what Colter did not ask for, to attain sponsors, followers, customers, likes, loves, or to garner attention by showing these qualities on social media— does not mean it's okay. Then, to remove us, Colter's family, from Colter's public Navy life as part of the transgressions is hurtful. The ebb and flow of what is online has ripple effects. My in-laws are part of Facebook’s remembrance of Allison, Colter is not. It has affected how they have treated me, our marriage, our life, our family. It leads to a lessening of us. When I set boundaries with my in-laws in this realm, I became a villain. My family is held hostage by the social normalizing of things one wouldn’t otherwise say in person. On Facebook there is no saying something at the right time or place, it just lives there forever. Then, others read it, think it's fine because it has likes, and so on and so on…and then, others get angry, become bullies, are rude, when I do not meet their expectations of allowing it in our family’s life. I refuse to be held captive by a supposed culture of remembrance when it's more acutely a culture of social media overwhelmingly created from a collective of private thoughts and individual significance. The Navy overstepped when they posted these.

Next—>