Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00432
Original file (ND04-00432.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-CTISN, USN
Docket No. ND04-00432

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040121. The Applicant requests the reason for the discharge be changed to “anything other than homosexual admission conduct ex. convenience of the government.” The Applicant requests a documentary record 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 20040910. 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 was discovered by the NDRB. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the narrative reason of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: HONORABLE/HOMOSEXUAL ADMISSION, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 3630400.





PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated
Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

 1. “While competing for some government jobs I fear Line 28 could be used to discriminate against me. I prefer something more ambiguous.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     950816 - 960213  COG
         Active: None
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 960214               Date of Discharge: 970422
Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 01 02 09
         Inactive: 00 00 00
Age at Entry: 25                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 16                        AFQT: 98
Highest Rate: CTISN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: None        Behavior: 3.00 (1)                OTA: 3.00

 Military Decorations: None
Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None
Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):
HONORABLE/HOMOSEXUAL ADMISSION, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 3630400.
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

Undated:         Applicant’s Voluntary Statement concerning his bisexuality.
970327:  Commanding Officer recommended honorable discharge by reason of homosexuality as evidenced by his statement that he is bisexual.

970328:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of homosexuality as evidenced by Applicant's statement that he admitted to being bisexual. Applicant advised, that if separation is approved, the characterization of his service may be general (under honorable conditions).
970328:  Applicant advised of his rights and elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
970409:  BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge with characterization as type warranted by service record by reason of homosexual admission.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was honorably discharged on 19970422 by reason of homosexuality - homosexual admission (A). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B). After a thorough review of the 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. While on active duty, the Applicant voluntarily stated that he was bisexual. No other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation. Relief denied.
The Applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his service to his country. Normally, to permit relief, an inequity or impropriety must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such inequity or impropriety occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment. Additionally, there is no law, or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, to enhance employment opportunities, or for good conduct in civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service. Relief not warranted.

The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge. 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 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97, Article 3630400, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00107

    Original file (ND99-00107.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 970619: Applicant’s Voluntary Statement made to whom it may concern, concerning his homosexuality.970619: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for by reason of homosexuality as evidenced by applicant's statement that he admitted to being a homosexual. 970718: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge with characterization as type warranted by service record by reason of homosexual conduct. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00221

    Original file (ND04-00221.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. (2) I recommend that upon member’s discharge his naval service be characterized as “honorable”. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20010119 with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of homosexuality - homosexual admission (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00178

    Original file (ND99-00178.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00178 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 981117, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or entry level separation or uncharacterized. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 861211: CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge with characterization as type...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00315

    Original file (ND04-00315.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20030225 with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of homosexuality - homosexual admission (A). As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01193

    Original file (ND04-01193.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20011219 with an uncharacterized (entry level separation) by reason of homosexuality - homosexual admission (A). PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01221

    Original file (ND99-01221.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-01221 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990920, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 890915 with under honorable conditions (general) by reason of homosexual conduct – [stated he is a homosexual] (A). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00054

    Original file (ND04-00054.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00054 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031006. “Equity Issue: Based on our review of evidentiary record, we aver on behalf of this former member that the narrative reason for discharge, Homosexual Conduct Admission, is erroneous and warrants the Board’s relief with amendment to Secretarial Authority.” The Applicant stated she was a homosexual on 20000327.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01085

    Original file (ND04-01085.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).Issues 1-2: Per Department of Defense and naval regulations homosexual conduct exists if a service member has stated that he/she is a homosexual or bisexual, or made other statements indicating a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00612

    Original file (ND99-00612.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    980524: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.980526: Commanding officer recommended discharge with type warranted by service record by reason of homosexuality as evidenced by his statement that he had engaged in homosexual acts. 980527: CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge with...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00384

    Original file (ND00-00384.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    890712: CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge with characterization as type warranted by service record by reason of homosexual conduct. In response to applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that the applicant made a voluntary statement concerning his homosexuality to a member of the Navy’s Judge Advocate General Corps on 14 May 1989. In issues 2 and 3, the applicant stated that he would possibly like to re-enlist and have his “Re-enlistment Code upgraded to RE-R1”.