ex-SR, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20110727
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  HOMOSEXUAL ADMISSION
Authority for Discharge:  MILPERSMAN 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
	Narrative Reason change to:	

Summary of Service
Prior Service:
Inactive:	USNR (DEP)	20010915 - 20011009  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20011010	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20021223	Highest Rank/Rate:  SA
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   14 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  50
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  3.0 (2)	Behavior:  1.5 (2)	OTA:  2.75

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	 

Periods of CONF:  

NJP:  

- 20021119:	Article  (Absence without leave, from appointed place of duty, 0600-1835), 20021108
	Article  (Failure to obey an order, to move from barracks to barge billeting), 20021007
	Awarded:   (to E-1)   Suspended:  

SCM:  	SPCM:  	CC:  	Retention Warning Counseling:  

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

	 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read:  “NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, NAVY UNIT COMMENDATION, LETTER OF APPRECIATION”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

Related to Military Service:
	DD 214:		Service/Medical Record:		Other Records:	
Related to Post-Service Period:
	Employment:		Finances:		Education/Training:	
	Health/Medical Records:		Rehabilitation/Treatment:		Criminal Records:	
	Personal Documentation:		Community Service:		References:	
	Department of VA letter:		Other Documentation:	
		Additional Statements:
	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	Applicant contends his discharge was improper/inequitable due to being based solely on hearsay.

Decision

Date:  20111005		Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  HOMOSEXUAL ADMISSION.

Discussion

The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Applicant identified one decisional issue for the Board’s consideration.  The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to  discharge and the discharge process to ensure  discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  The Applicant’s record of service did not include any NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) retention warnings, but did reflect one  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absence without leave from appointed place of duty, 0600-1835 on 8 Nov 2002) and Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation, failed to comply with a CPO order to move out of barracks and into barge billeting, 7 Oct 2002).  The record did reveal the Applicant made a written statement on 18 Nov 2002 stating he was homosexual, had engaged in homosexual acts, and had been participating in oral sex with another male for the past 3 months.  Based on the statement made by the Applicant, which created a rebuttal presumption that the Applicant had engaged in, had attempted to engage in, and/or had the propensity to engage in homosexual conduct,  command administratively processed him for separation, which was mandatory per the Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) in effect at the time.  When notified of administrative separation processing using the  procedure on 9 Dec 2002, the Applicant waived  rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, request an administrative separation board, and present evidence demonstrating that he did not engage in, attempt to engage in, have a propensity to engage in, or intend to engage in, homosexual acts.  Based on the facts and evidence available, the Applicant’s Commanding Officer (CO) submitted a request to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command (PERSCOM) for administrative separation of the Applicant with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to Homosexual Admission.  On 18 Dec 2002, PERSCOM directed the Applicant be separated as recommended by his CO.  The discharge was effected on 23 Dec 2002. 

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge was improper/inequitable due to being based solely on hearsay.  Per MILPERSMAN Section 1910-148, if a CO questions the credibility of evidence of homosexual conduct, a fact-finding investigation may be necessary.  However, an investigation is not mandatory and only the CO can authorize it.  The sole purpose of the investigation is to uncover further information to assist the CO in determining whether the alleged homosexual conduct actually occurred.  In the Applicant’s case, the documentation within the service records, which included two signed statements by the Applicant admitting to being homosexual and having engaged in homosexual conduct, clearly revealed the Applicant had engaged in, had attempted to engage in, and had a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct.  Per the MILPERSMAN, when a service member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual and does not contest separation, little or no investigation is necessary.  The service member is considered credible when: they state they are homosexual/bisexual; are married to a member of the same sex; have engaged in homosexual acts; a reliable person has observed or heard a member engaging in homosexual acts; a reliable person states they heard, observed, or discovered a member make a spoken/written statement that a reasonable person would believe was intended to convey the fact that they engage in, attempt to engage in, or have a propensity to engage in homosexual acts; or a reliable person states they have observed behavior that amounts to a non-verbal statement by a member that they are homosexual or bisexual (i.e., behavior that a reasonable person would believe was intended to convey that the member engages in, attempt to engage in or has the propensity to engage in homosexual acts).  Based on the preponderance of the evidence, the Applicant’s CO determined that the Applicant’s statement was credible and processed him for administrative separation from the Navy per the requirements set forth in the MILPERSMAN.

With a clean service record and adherence to the minimum acceptable levels of performance and conduct, a homosexual admission would normally rate an Honorable character of service upon discharge.  However, based on the Applicant’s service records, which reflected an NJP for violation of UCMJ Articles 86 and 92 and references to numerous counseling sessions from his chain of command related to substandard performance and behavior (late for work on frequent occasions and alcohol abuse), the Board determined that the General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge awarded the Applicant upon separation was equitable.  Accordingly, the Board found the Applicant’s issue to be without merit and did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.  Relief denied.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries and the administrative separation process, the Board found the discharge was proper and equitable at the time of discharge.  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain HOMOSEXUAL ADMISSION.  The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of  discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 28 April 2005, Article 1910-148, SEPARATION BY REASON OF HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT.

B.  Public Law 111-321, signed 22 Dec 2010 (implemented 20 Sep 2011).

C.  Under Secretary of Defense (PR) Memorandum (Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell), 20 Sep 2011.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs, Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity. 

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures:  If you believe 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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC  20301-4000.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “http://Boards.law.af.mil.”

Additional Reviews:  After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.  There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

Service Benefits:  The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

Employment/Educational Opportunities:  The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/RE-code:  Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  Only the BCNR can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct:  DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.  Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons.  Only the BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.

Post-Service Conduct:  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board reviews.  Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle.   The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate  in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD): Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

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

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