DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
                     DISCHARGE REVIEW
                   DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

ex-SR, USNR 
Docket No. ND03-01445

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030909.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040628.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service as discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain:  UNCHARACTERIZED/ HOMOSEXUAL ADMISSION, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-148 (previously 3630400).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “I know you must receive a great number of pleading letters.  Yet.  I ask that you really give this letter your closest attention, as my daughter’s future is so dependent on your understanding and your decision.

I’m the stepfather of D_ G_ M_, therefore a bit biased, and I could go on and on about my daughter’s qualities, which anyone in your position must overlook as sugar coating.  Therefore, I’ll just make this letter as short and as factual as possible.

I spent three tours in the military during the Viet Nam era.  Therefore, I have a fair knowledge of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and if I had had a son.  I’m sure I would have passed some of my knowledge about the military on to him.

In this manner and speaking with others, most young men acquire their knowledge of the dos and don’ts in military life and what the repercussions are for the don’ts.  Nevertheless, young adults who believe they know everything, and most young women that seldom join the military, have little knowledge of the military.

Fortunately, the military knows that these young men and women’s knowledge is very limited and therefore includes classes on The Uniform Code of Military Justice as a part of their basic training, instructing them on the laws for which they will be held accountable.

My daughter wasn’t in the Navy long enough to even attend these classes.

You and I know that ignorance is no excuse for the law.  However there are some other mitigating circumstances in my daughter’s case.

Almost from birth, D_ (Applicant) wanted to be a Sheriff.  Not just any Sheriff She just had to be a Los Angeles County Sheriff.  After her first application, the Sheriffs Dept.  felt that she was perhaps a little young.  However, they encouraged her and stated that if she had some time in the military and preferably in the military police, her acceptance into the Sheriffs Dept. would all but be assured.

I wasn’t thrilled with her choice to become a Sheriff or her desire to join the military.  Nevertheless.  I have always felt that her life, is her life, and my position was to simply support her.

In spite of her strong ties with family and friends, her very secure employment, she decided to join the Navy and if it were not for some poor decisions, some of which were my daughter’s, she would have been a worthy contribution to the Navy.  I think you’ll agree that my daughter’s poor decisions were brought about by some poor decisions of others.

About one week after my daughter joined and began her basic training, Her dear friend, Mrs. C_, an elderly woman who was more like a mom to D_ (Applicant) died, June 29,1998.  D_ (Applicant) was devistated.  She couldn’t help thinking that her leaving Mrs. C_ alone was the reason for her death.  I think her feeling of guilt outweighed her feeling of grid.

Of course, she requested immediate leave to return to Los Angeles to be with the family and attend the funeral.  Her immediate supervisor had given her permission.  She made her travel arrangements, and then learned that a CPO had reversed the decision for her leave because Mrs. C_ was not a blood relative.

In her upset.  she was certain that her commanding officer would reverse the CPO's decision and ask to speak to her commanding officer.  The permission and was denied.  She then stated that she just wanted out of her enlistment agreement.  She was then told that the only way she could get out quickly was to just state the she was a lesbian.  She replied "O.K.  I will”.

She was escorted to R.T.C.  Command investigator.  AME2 S_ to make a statement.  She was ask what her sexual tendencies were.  She stated,” homosexual”.  She was told that she must state for how long.  She replied, "for four years.” He then ask with whom she was involved.  She could only state.  "no one.”

He then explained the Navy’s policy regarding homosexuality and ask if she understood it.  She replied ‘yes.” He then ask if she had had sexual relations with anyone in the Navy.  She replied “no.” Then he ask that she put her statement in writing.  She did.

The statement (attached)was typed and she was ask to sign.  Almost instantly she was out and on her way home.  Too late for the funeral, but in time to be of some comfort to Mrs. C_’s family, and for them to her.

I’m certain my daughter knew that this statement would result in a DD form 214 that would be less than honorable.  But, had no idea that the discharge she would receive would have such a detrimental effect on her future.  Her only dishonorable act was to lie about being a Lesbian.  An act she did out of desperation and loyalty to her dear friend.

Not even the Commander and Chief of our country was dishonorably discharged for lying about sexual matters.

I feel certain that the CPO that decided that D_ wasn’t entitled to leave has never given any of this a second thought.  But.  D_ has.  Every day it hangs on her like the weight of the world.

She has completed all the necessary law enforcement courses at Mt.  San Antonio College, and tries hard to stay in marathon condition while continuing her hopes that some day the Sheriffs Dept.  will accept her.  However, deep down inside, I thinks she knows the discharge will always be in her way.

It’s been in the way for five years now.  Isn’t that enough punishment for the lie she told?

I ask that you modify her DD Form 214.  if for no other reason than the country that I served is a country fairness and justice.  For her to continue to be punish due to the decision of one individual CPO just isn’t fair.  I don’t ask that she receive an honorable discharge.  But I think a general discharge under honorable conditions would be fair.

We have the Senate and House.  Tribunals and Juries with Judges to prevent just one person from imposing their will to the detriment of another.  What benefit is it to our Country or to our community to continue to punish my daughter.  Please review this case and allow my daughter to restore some dignity to her life.

Respectfully Submitted.

B_ H_ R_ (Applicant's stepfather)”

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:

One page from Applicant’s service record
Certificate of death
Letter from Applicant to Los Angeles County Sheriff Department, undated
Personal recommendation to Los Angeles County Sheriff Department, dated March 3, 2002
Letter of recommendation to Los Angeles County Sheriff Department, dated March 4, 2002
Letter of recommendation to Los Angeles County Sheriff Department, undated

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Inactive:  None
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  980220		Date of Discharge:  980728

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  01  13
	Inactive:  00  03  25

Age at Entry:  26			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  31

Highest Rate:  SR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMA*		Behavior:  NMA		OTA:  NMA

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

*No marks assigned.

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNCHARACTERIZED/HOMOSEXUAL ADMISSION, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-148 (previously 3630400).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

980616:	Applicant to active duty training for 36 months.

980630:	Applicant’s Voluntary Statement made to AME2(AW) S_, concerning her homosexuality.

980630:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for by reason of homosexual conduct as evidenced by Applicant's statement that she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, which creates a rebuttable presumption that she engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts; and member engaging in, attempting to engage in, or soliciting another to engage in a homosexual act or acts.  Applicant advised, that if separation is approved, the characterization of service may be other than honorable.

980630:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected and waive all rights except the right to make a statement.

980702:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge with an entry level separation by reason of homosexuality as evidenced by her statement that she had engaged in homosexual acts.

980727:	BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge with an uncharacterized by reason of homosexual conduct acts.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19980728 with an uncharacterized by reason of homosexuality - homosexual admission (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

Issue 1.  By regulation, members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of service "Uncharacterized" unless there were unusual circumstances regarding performance or conduct, which would merit an "honorable" characterization.  Applicant's service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during her less than 6 months in the military to warrant a change of discharge to "honorable."  The Applicant should be aware that, with respect to nonservice-related administrative matters, i.e., VA benefits, educational pursuits, and especially civilian employment, an uncharacterized separation is considered the equivalent of an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  Relief denied.

The summary of service clearly documents that homosexuality – homosexual admission, was the reason the applicant was discharged.  No other Narrative Reason for Separation more clearly describes why the applicant was discharged.  To change the Narrative Reason for Separation would be inappropriate.  Relief based on this issue is not warranted.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence relating to her discharge at that time.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 to 31 Aug 98, Article 1910-148 (previously 3630400), Separation by Reason of Homosexual Conduct.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.  The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness.  You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “afls14.jag.af.mil”.

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023