Decision  Civello, Jason v. MBTA Transit Police Department 2/5/26

Date:	02/05/2026
Organization:	Civil Service Commission
Docket Number:	G2-25-077

• Appearance for Appellant: Gerald S. McAuliffe, Esq.
• Appearance for Respondent: Kevin S. McDermott, Esq. & Meaghan Green Drake, Esq.
• Hearing Officer: Angela C. McConney

The Commission affirmed the decision of the MBTA Transit Police Department to bypass  candidate for promotion to sergeant due to his lack of candor in an internal investigation regarding off-duty conduct.

Decision

On March 20, 2025, the Appellant, Jason Civello (Appellant or Civello), pursuant to G.L. c. 31, § 2(b), appealed to the Civil Service Commission (Commission), contesting the March 6, 2025 decision of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Transit Police Department (Respondent or Department) to bypass him for promotion to sergeant.  The Commission conducted a remote pre-hearing conference on May 27, 2025. The Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Decision on June 2, 2025, which this Commission denied on July 4, 2025. On September 3, 2025, I conducted an in-person full evidentiary hearing at the offices of the Commission, located at 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 200, Boston, Massachusetts.[1]  The Commission recorded the hearing via the Webex platform.[2]  The parties submitted post hearing briefs on or about October 17, 2025, whereupon the administrative record then closed.[3] 

For the reasons set forth below, Mr. Civello’s appeal is denied.

Findings of Fact

I admitted fifteen exhibits from the Respondent (R. Exhibits 1-15) and twelve exhibits from the Appellant (A. Exhibits 1-12).  I also admitted the Stipulated Facts as a joint exhibit. (J. Exhibit 1) Based upon the documents submitted and the testimony of the following witnesses:

Called by the Respondent:

• Richard Sullivan, Superintendent of Police, MBTA Transit Police Department

Called by the Appellant:

• Jason Civello, Appellant

and taking administrative notice of all pleadings filed in the case, pertinent rules, statutes, regulations, case law and policies, and drawing reasonable inferences from the credible evidence, I make the following findings of fact:

Anonymous Complaint about Mr. Civello

1. The Respondent received a January 22, 2025 anonymous complaint alleging various incidents of misconduct by Mr. Civello while he was deployed to Nairobi, Kenya with the Massachusetts National Guard (MNG) on or around November of 2024. [4] (R. Exhibit 1; Testimony of Sullivan, Testimony of Appellant)  
2. The anonymous complaint was also sent by email to the MBTA Police Chief, the Office of the Governor, and the MNG Adjutant General, among others. (R. Exhibit 1; Testimony of Sullivan, Testimony of Appellant)  
3. The focus of the complaint was that Mr. Civello allegedly disobeyed orders from the MNG to stay away from sex workers while deployed in Nairobi, Kenya.  (R. Exhibit 1, Testimony of Sullivan, Testimony of Appellant)  

Mr. Civello’s Deployment to Nairobi, Kenya

4. Mr. Civello has been an officer with the Department since August 26, 2002, and served with the MNG for 33 years until his retirement in 2025.  (A. Exhibit 1; Testimony of Appellant)
5. Mr. Civello was deployed to Nairobi, Kenya, on or about November 2024. (R. Exhibit 1, Testimony of Sullivan, Testimony of Appellant)  
6. After a long flight, Mr. Civello landed in Nairobi, Kenya that month and attended an MNG briefing at 4:45 p.m. that same day.  (R. Exhibit 1; Testimony of Sullivan, Testimony of Appellant)  
7. At the briefing, members of the MNG were ordered to be careful when engaging with local women as they were likely victims of sex slavery and human trafficking.  (R. Exhibit 1; Testimony of Sullivan, Testimony of Appellant)  
8. After the briefing, Mr. Civello went to the hotel’s lounge with a colleague to have some drinks, and they began socializing with both men and women. Mr. Civello consumed alcohol.  (R. Exhibits 1 and 5; Testimony of Sullivan, Testimony of Appellant)  
9. At the hotel’s lounge, Mr. Civello met a woman, and he asked her to join him for dinner in his hotel room.  (Testimony of Appellant)  
10. Mr. Civello spent the night with the woman, whom he could not name.  (Testimony of Appellant)
11. Mr. Civello was awakened the next morning when an MNG Command sergeant major knocked on his hotel room door to check on him and let him know that he was late for the conference.  (R. Exhibit 1; Testimony of Appellant)
12. Mr. Civello opened the door and apologized to the sergeant major for “sleeping in” and missing the start of the conference.  (Testimony of Appellant)
13. Mr. Civello arrived 50 minutes late for the conference. Around noon, superior officers removed him from the conference.  (R. Exhibits 1 and 3; Testimony of Sullivan, Testimony of Appellant)
14. An MNG sergeant majorinformed Mr. Civello that it was likely that the woman he entertained in his room the previous evening “might be” a  sex worker.  (Testimony of Appellant)
15. Mr. Civello spoke on the phone to his immediate chain of command, an MNG Colonel, and told him, “They’re sending me home because they think I may have spent the night with a prostitute.”  (Testimony of Appellant)
16. The MNG sent Mr. Civello home within 24 hours of his arrival in Nairobi.  (R. Exhibits 1 and 4; Testimony of Sullivan, Testimony of Appellant)
17. Upon his return from deployment in Nairobi, Mr. Civello discussed the incident and discipline with his long-time friend and colleague, an MNG Brigadier General. (Testimony of Sullivan, Testimony of Appellant)
18. As a result of the incident in Nairobi, the MNG issued Mr. Civello a written reprimand, which he signed.  (R. Exhibit 5, Testimony of Sullivan, Testimony of Appellant)
19. The MNG informed Mr. Civello that the reprimand was based on “[t]he perception . . . that [he] may have spent too much time in the bar with a lady that someone said may have been a prostitute.”  (Testimony of Appellant)
20. Shortly after the discipline meeting, Mr. Civello retired from the MNG . (Testimony of Sullivan, Testimony of Appellant)
21. Despite the Respondent’s request, neither Mr. Civello nor the MNG provided a copy of the signed written reprimand to the Respondent or to this Commission.   (Testimony of Sullivan, Testimony of Appellant)

Investigation by Respondent and Reasons for Bypass

22. Richard Sullivan, the Superintendent of the MBTA Transit Police Department, oversees its Professional Standards Unit.  (Testimony of Sullivan)
23. Supt. Sullivan investigated the January 22, 2025 anonymous complaint against Mr. Civello.  (Testimony of Sullivan)
24. Supt. Sullivan first reached out to the MNG and spoke to a Brigadier General about the allegations.  (Testimony of Sullivan)  
25. The Brigadier General informed Supt. Sullivan that he was a long-time colleague and friend of Mr. Civello, and would “advocate” for him.  (Testimony of Sullivan)  
26. The Brigadier General confirmed that Mr. Civello was involved in an incident while deployed to Nairobi, Kenya, in November of 2024.  (Testimony of Sullivan)  
27. The Brigadier General did not deny or offer any defense to the allegations contained within the anonymous complaint.  (Testimony of Sullivan)  
28. The Brigadier General confirmed that the MNG had disciplined Mr. Civello for the incident, and that he would “be retired.”  (Testimony of Sullivan)
29. Despite Supt. Sullivan’s request, the Brigadier General declined to provide the personnel records, investigatory information, or the written reprimand about the incident.  (Testimony of Sullivan)
30. On February 4, 2025, the Professional Standards Unit sent Mr. Civello an email directing him to provide a memo answering questions concerning the incident. Question 3 of that email asked, in part, “What reason/s were you provided with for the shortened deployment?”  (R. Exhibit 2; Testimony of Sullivan, Testimony of Appellant)
31. On February 10, 2025, Mr. Civello responded to the Professional Standards Unit.  (R. Exhibit 3; Testimony of Sullivan, Testimony of Appellant)
32. Mr. Civello responded to Question 3, in pertinent part:  “As a result of the long flights and fatigue, I missed a time I was supposed to report to the conference by approximately 50 minutes. This was due to the fact it was daylight saving [sic] time and the hotel clock did not reset.”  Mr. Civello also noted that he had spent time at the hotel bar with both men and women, and then he was sent home early to speak to his chain of command as “protocol.”  (R. Exhibit 3, Testimony of Sullivan, Testimony of Appellant)
33. Mr. Civello did not include in his response to Question 3 that he had spent the night with a woman he had met at the bar or that he had been sent home because the MNG believed that he been involved with a local sex worker.  (R. Exhibit 3; Testimony of Sullivan, Testimony of Appellant)
34. In the Professional Standards February 10, 2025 email, Question 4 asked:  “Were you briefed upon your arrival relative to the local sex/human trafficking environment and were you ordered by a member of the United States Military not to engage with the locals, particularly suspected sex workers? If affirmative did you adhere/obey said order?” (R. Exhibit 3; Testimony of Sullivan, Testimony of Appellant)
35. In response to question 4, Mr. Civello replied, “Yes, I was briefed to stay away from local prostitute areas, but I was not ordered to not engage with locals. I was also briefed that staying in the hotel was the best way to stay out of trouble.”  (R. Exhibit 3; Testimony of Sullivan, Testimony of Appellant)
36. The Professional Standards Unit deemed Mr. Civello’s February 7, 2025 responses to be evasive, misleading, and false; that it did not make sense that he would be sent home from deployment because he was late for a conference; and that Kenya observes Eastern Africa Time, not Daylight Saving Time, and as a result clocks are not reset for Daylight Saving Time in Kenya.  (R. Exhibit 11, Testimony of Sullivan)
37. The Professional Standards Unit further deemed Mr. Civello’s February 7 responses to be evasive, misleading, and false, as he denied that he was ordered to stay away from local women at the initial briefing, and he failed to admit that he spent the night with a local woman whom he had met at the hotel bar.  (R. Exhibit 11; Testimony of Sullivan)
38. On February 10, 2025, the Professional Standards Unit sent Mr. Civello a second email, directing him to provide further answers concerning the incident surrounding the night of his arrival.  (R. Exhibit 4; Testimony of Sullivan)
39. In response to the February 10, 2025 email, Mr. Civello admitted that on the night of his arrival in Nairobi, despite orders to stay away from sex workers, he spent the night in his “quarters” with a woman he met at the hotel bar.  (R. Exhibit 5; Testimony of Sullivan, Testimony of Appellant)
40. In response to the February 10, 2025 email, Mr. Civello admitted that he was not given a written reprimand because he was late for a conference.  (R. Exhibit 5; Testimony of Sullivan, Testimony of Appellant)
41. In response to the February 10, 2025 email, Mr. Civello stated that “I was given a reprimand for possibly violating General order number one, which among other things, does not allow a Soldier to enter a place where prostitution is allowed, I never left the hotel.”  (R. Exhibit 5)
42. In response to the February 10, 2025 email, Mr. Civello failed to provide any specific facts concerning the investigation of the incident by MNG, who conducted the investigation, or the reprimand that was issued thereafter.  (R. Exhibit 5)
43. At the hearing, Mr. Civello testified that he could not remember the contents of the reprimand.  (Testimony of Appellant)
44. On April 28, 2025, as a result of his responses to the Professional Standards Unit’s questions, the Department issued Mr. Civello a three (3) day suspension for his lack of candor during the Professional Standards Unit investigation and removed him from the voluntary overtime and detail lists for thirty (30) calendar days.  (R. Exhibit 7; Testimony of Sullivan)
45. The Respondent charged Mr. Civello with violating three provisions of TDP General Order No. 2021-02, Standards of Conduct – for Loyalty and Integrity (§ 2.1), Truthfulness (§ 2.2), and Behavior (§ 2.3).  (R. Exhibits 6 and 7)

Promotional Process and Civello Bypass

46. On September 23, 2023, Mr. Civello took the civil service examination for promotion to police sergeant.  (Stipulated Facts)
47. The state’s Human Resources Division (HRD) issued Certification #09235 on February 20, 2024.  (R. Exhibit 9)
48. Mr. Civello ranked second on the certification, tied with another officer.  (R. Exhibit 9)
49. On February 28, 2025, Dep. Supt. Donahue informed Mr. Civello that he was bypassed due to his evasive and misleading responses to the Professional Standards Unit’s questions during the investigation.  (R. Exhibit 11; Testimony of Sullivan)
50. On March 3, 2025, the Department issued Personnel Order 2025-08, advising that effective March 8, 2025, three (3) officers were being promoted to sergeant, including a candidate ranked third on the list (and fourth of seven officers overall).  (R. Exhibit 10)
51. On March 6, 2025, the MBTA Police Chief issued Mr. Civello a bypass letter, providing the bypass reasons of untruthfulness and lack of candor when answering questions from the Professional Standards Unit.  (R. Exhibit 11) 
52. The March 6, 2025 bypass letter advised Mr. Civello that he was bypassed for a chosen candidate who was honest and possessed a better work record.  (R. Exhibit 11) 
53. This chosen candidate, ranked third on the certification (but fourth overall), was not untruthful to Department investigators, had a very good relationship with the community, and freely volunteered for assignments in difficult areas.  Further, the activity logs demonstrated this chosen candidate’s stronger work ethic when measured by volume of work.  (R. Exhibits 12 and 13; Testimony of Sullivan)

Applicable Legal Standard

The core mission of Massachusetts civil service law is to enforce “basic merit principles” for “recruiting, selecting and advancing of employees on the basis of their relative ability, knowledge and skills” and “assuring that all employees are protected against coercion for political purposes, and are protected from arbitrary and capricious actions.” G.L. c. 31, § 1; see, e.g., Massachusetts Ass’n of Minority Law Enforcement Officers v. Abban, 434 Mass. 256, 259 (2001); MacHenry v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 632, 635 (1995), rev. den., 423 Mass. 1106 (1996); see also Brookline v. Alston, 487 Mass. 278 (2021) (analyzing broad scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction to enforce basic merit principles under civil service law). The civil service system is designed to guard against political considerations, favoritism, and bias in governmental hiring and promotion.

Original appointments of civil service employees are made from a list of candidates, called a “certification”, whose names are drawn in the order in which they appear on the applicable civil service “eligible list”, using what is called the 2n+1 formula. G. L. c. 31, §§ 6 through 11, 16 through 27; Personnel Administration Rules, PAR.09.  To deviate from the rank order of preferred hiring and appoint a person “other than the qualified person whose name appears highest,” an appointing authority must provide written reasons – positive, negative, or both – consistent with basic merit principles. See G.L. c. 31, § 27; PAR.08(4). This is commonly referred to as a bypass. “In addition to bypassing a candidate for appropriate negative reasons, an appointing authority may bypass a candidate for positive reasons, as when one police candidate obtains specialty training and assumes specialty responsibilities that another candidate has not.” Carnes v. Norwell, 34 MCSR 91 (2021).

The Commission’s role is to determine whether the appointing authority has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it has “reasonable justification” for the bypass after an “impartial and reasonably thorough review” of the relevant background and qualifications bearing on the candidate’s present fitness to perform the duties of the position. Boston Police Dep’t v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 483 Mass. 461, 474-78 (2019); Police Dep’t of Boston v. Kavaleski, 463 Mass. 680, 688-89 (2012); Beverly v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 182, 187 (2010); Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 727-28 (2003). Reasonable justification means that the appointing authority’s actions were based on adequate reasons supported by credible evidence, when weighed by an unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rules of law. Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First Dist. Ct. of E. Middlesex, 262 Mass. 477, 482 (1928). See also Commissioners of Civil Serv. v. Municipal Ct. of the City of Boston, 359 Mass. 214 (1971). “The Commission’s role, while important, is relatively narrow in scope: reviewing the legitimacy and reasonableness of the appointing authority’s actions.” Beverly, 78 Mass. App. Ct. at 187 (citing Falmouth v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 447 Mass. 814, 824-26 (2006)). The Commission owes “substantial deference” to the appointing authority’s exercise of judgment in determining whether there was reasonable justification shown. Beverly, 78 Mass. App. Ct. at 188.

Analysis

               This issue in this case is not whether Mr. Civello violated the November 2024 MNG orders to stay away from sex workers while deployed in Nairobi, Kenya. Rather, it is Mr. Civello’s untruthfulness in responding to the Department’s Professional Standards Unit’s questions during its investigation of his involuntary early departure from Nairobi. 

               The Department bypassed Mr. Civello for promotion to sergeant due to his evasive and misleading responses to questions during the TPD Professional Standards investigation. I find that Mr. Civello’s lack of candor presents a serious issue and is sufficient to disqualify him for promotion to the position of sergeant. I concur with the rationale set forth in the TPD bypass letter. Mr. Civello’s lack of candor in responding to the questions put forth by the Professional Standards Unit is unacceptable behavior for a police officer who is seeking a promotion to a position that requires one to supervise, mentor, and guide other officers.

               The record shows that in January of 2025, an anonymous person emailed Mr. Civello’s superiors at the Department, alleging that he had engaged in serious misconduct while on a November 2024 MNG deployment in Nairobi, Kenya. The email asserted that Mr. Civello violated orders while deployed by the MNG in Nairobi, Kenya, to wit: by engaging with a sex worker. 

               Upon arrival in Nairobi, Mr. Civello and other MNG members were briefed on the local environment and were explicitly ordered not to engage with local women, as they are likely to be victims of sex slavery and human trafficking. Despite that directive, that evening Mr.  Civello and a friend went to the lounge in the hotel where he was stationed. There, Mr. Civello met a woman whom he later took to his room. Mr. Civello admitted that the woman stayed overnight in his room. 

               The next morning, Mr. Civello was awakened in his hotel room by a Command sergeant major and advised that he was fifty minutes late for a conference being held in the hotel. After attending the conference, he was approached around noon by a member of the MNG and told that he was to be immediately sent back to the United States. As a result of his failure to obey orders, Mr. Civello was sent home within 24 hours of landing in Nairobi.  

               Mr. Civello alleges that the MNG did not conduct an investigation in Kenya. Rather, he was sent home to be dealt with by his chain of command in Massachusetts. As a result of his trip to Nairobi, Mr. Civello received a written reprimand from the MNG, which he signed.

               After receiving the anonymous email, the Professional Standards Unit commenced an investigation. In late January 2025, Supt. Sullivan contacted Civello’s superior at the MNG. The supervisor, a Brigadier General, disclosed that he was a long-time friend of Mr. Civello’s as well as an MNG colleague. He confirmed that an incident occurred with Mr. Civello in Nairobi, and as a result, Mr. Civello was issued a written reprimand, which he signed. Although the supervisor declined to turn over records of any investigation of the incident or to specifically address the reason(s) why Mr. Civello received the reprimand, he did not dispute the misconduct allegations contained in the anonymous email. He also stated that Mr. Civello would be “retired” from the MNG.

               On February 4, 2025, the Professional Standards Unit asked Mr. Civello to respond to numerous questions regarding the incident in Nairobi. In response to a question as to why he was sent home early, he responded that he was late to the conference due to fatigue resulting from the long airplane flights to Nairobi and falsely claimed that it was Daylight Saving Time and that the hotel clock was reset. Mr. Civello did not mention anything about his alcohol consumption or the woman who stayed in his room. Mr. Civello’s testimony at the hearing conclusively established that the reason he was being sent home was due to the belief that he had spent a night with a sex worker.  I find that his initial response to the Professional Standards Unit’s inquiries – that he was sent home as he was fifty minutes late to an MNG conference – was false and misleading.

               On February 10, 2025, the Professional Standards Unit followed up on the initial email with a second email seeking further clarification as to why Mr. Civello was sent home. In response, Mr. Civello again denied that he had engaged a sex worker in Nairobi. He also answered a question about whether he had received a written reprimand as a result of his twenty-four hours in Nairobi. He responded:  “I was given a reprimand for possibly violating General order number one, which among other things, does not allow a Soldier to enter a place where prostitution is allowed. I never left the hotel.” 

               Mr. Civello never produced a copy of the written reprimand to the Department despite a request to do so, and he refused to sign a written authorization for the release of his MNG records.  Mr. Civello, albeit disingenuously, denied knowing the contents of the written reprimand that he had signed.  Mr. Civello also failed to produce or seek production of the written reprimand from the MNG, which would have shed light on the reason(s) why he was abruptly sent home. It begs credulity that if the written reprimand cleared him of the claims, as made by the anonymous emailer, Mr. Civello would not have failed to produce the document upon the Department’s request, and he would have produced it at the evidentiary hearing.

               As a result of Mr. Civello’s evasive answers, Supt. Sullivan believed that Mr. Civello’s responses regarding why he was sent home were not credible. In addition, Supt. Sullivan believed other answers provided by Mr. Civello were similarly evasive, including those that asked whether he was intoxicated; whether Mr. Civello was forced to retire from the MNG because of the incident; and Mr. Civello’s claim that the Nairobi deployment was to be a “short trip.”  I concur with Supt. Sullivan’s findings.

               As a result of the Professional Standards Unit investigation, Supt. Sullivan concluded that Mr. Civello was not a suitable candidate for promotion to sergeant. Dep. Supt. Donohue informed Mr. Civello verbally, and Chief Green confirmed the bypass in writing.  

               On April 28, 2025, the Department disciplined Mr. Civello, and issued him a three-day suspension for violating several provisions of the Department’s Chapter 101 Standards of Conduct.

               The chosen candidate for promotion to sergeant ranked fourth on Certification No. 09235. Supt. Sullivan provided persuasive testimony regarding his suitability for promotion. Supt. Sullivan described an active and self-initiating officer, who had volunteered for a very difficult assignment at Nubian Square, a busy bus terminal that other officers did not want to handle. Supt. Sullivan had observed him on this assignment and was impressed with his commitment to serving the community. Not only was the chosen candidate described as a very honest and hardworking officer by Supt. Sullivan, but this was also further supported by the Department’s activity logs, documenting the officer’s volume of work and showing his stronger work ethic in comparison to Mr. Civello’s. As a result of these factors, the Department found that the chosen candidate was a superior candidate to Mr. Civello. I find that the Respondent presented sufficient and reasonable grounds for promoting the chosen candidate over Mr. Civello.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Transit Police Department has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that it had reasonable justification for bypassing Jason Civello for the position of sergeant with the Transit Police Department.  The appeal filed under G2-25-077is hereby denied.

Civil Service Commission

/s/ Angela C. McConney

Angela. C. McConney

Commissioner

By vote of the Civil Service Commission (Bowman, Chair; Dooley, Markey, McConney and Stein, Commissioners) on February 5, 2026.

Either party may file a motion for reconsideration within ten days of receipt of this Commission order or decision. Under the pertinent provisions of the Code of Mass. Regulations, 801 C.M.R. § 1.01(7)(l), the motion must identify a clerical or mechanical error in this order or decision or a significant factor the Agency or the Presiding Officer may have overlooked in deciding the case.  A motion for reconsideration does not toll the statutorily prescribed thirty-day time limit for seeking judicial review of this Commission order or decision.

Under the provisions of G.L c. 31, § 44, any party aggrieved by this Commission order or decision may initiate proceedings for judicial review under G.L. c. 30A, § 14 in the superior court within thirty (30) days after receipt of this order or decision. Commencement of such proceeding shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of this Commission order or decision.  After initiating proceedings for judicial review in Superior Court, the plaintiff, or his / her attorney, is required to serve a copy of the summons and complaint upon the Boston office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth, with a copy to the Civil Service Commission, in the time and in the manner prescribed by Mass. R. Civ. P. 4(d).

Notice to:
Gerald S. McAuliffe, Esq. (for Appellant)
Kevin S. McDermott, Esq. (for Respondent)
Meaghan Green Drake, Esq. (for Respondent)

                [1] The Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure, 801 C.M.R. § 1.01 (formal rules), apply to adjudications before the Commission with Chapter 31 or any Commission rules taking precedence.

                [2]The Commission provided a link to the parties. Should there be a judicial appeal of this decision, the plaintiff in the judicial appeal is obligated to supply the court with a transcript of this hearing to the extent that they wish to challenge the decision as unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary or capricious, or an abuse of discretion. In such cases, the plaintiff in the judicial appeal must transcribe the transcript from the Commission’s official recording.

                ^[3] The Respondent had the hearing transcribed by a certified court reporter and submitted the transcript with its post hearing brief.

                [4] There is no testimony or documentation concerning the specific date in November 2024 that Civello left for, arrived in, or departed from Nairobi, Kenya.