Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800264
Original file (ND0800264.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-YN3, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20071109
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: US N R (DEP)      20010512 - 20010823              Active: 20010824 – 20050929 HON
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20050930      Period of enlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 20070227
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 28 D ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 55
Highest Rank /Rate : YN3    Evaluation marks: Performance: 3.0 ( 1 )     Behavior: 3.0 ( 1 )          OTA: 3.17
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle Pistol ENLISTED SURFACE WARFARE SPECIALIST

Periods of UA /C ONF :

Retention Warnings: .
         20040914 : For innappropriate behavior .

Types of Documents Submitted

 Related to Military Service:      DD 214:          Service and/or Medical Record:            Other Records:

Related to Post-Service Period:  
         Employment:                        Finances:                          Education /Training :     
         Health/Medical Records:           Substance Abuse:                           Criminal Records:       
         Family/Personal Status:           Community Service:                References:              
        
Additional Statements From Applicant:             From Representat ion :              From Member of Congress:
Other Documentation (Describe)



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Reenlistment Opportunities
2. Administrative Board’s decision was based on “hear-say ”
3. Proper legal procedures were not followed
4. Service Record

Decision

Date: 20 08 0306             Location: Washington D.C         R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall HOMOSEXUAL ACT .
Discussion

 : either which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum regarding .

Issue s 2 -3: ( ). The Applicant implies that his Administrative Board based its’ decision on “hear-say” and that the command did not properly follow the legal procedures during the investigation and separation. The Applicant’s record reflects that Applicant acknowledged the Navy’s rules for Sexual Harassment and Personal Relationships. The Applicant was subsequently counseled on 20040915 for acting in an inappropriate manner with two shipmates and acknowledged his command’s policy on sexual harassment and personal relationships. O n 20050930, the homosexual conduct policy was made available to the Applicant and the Applicant acknowledged the policy . Concerning the proper following of the legal procedures, MILPERSMAN states that an investigation is not mandatory and an investigation can only be authorized by the commanding officer. The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that the command unfairly singled him out for ridicule or discipline. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.

Issue 4: ( ). T he Board reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis. If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order. Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval service. There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant committed a homosexual act. Commission of a homosexual act requires mandatory separation processing. The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for h is conduct or that he should not be held accountable for h is actions . When a Sailor ’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions. A general ( under honorable conditions ) discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record. An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate .
In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 29 April 2005 until Present, Article 1910-148, SEPARATION BY REASON OF HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT.

B. 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 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 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 : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provi ded the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the 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. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years , has already been grante d a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his 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 Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board. 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.
Employmen t / Educational Opportunities : The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the Board’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 Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the Board 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 subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended. The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, 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 “PTSD . ” Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving Naval service. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge 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. Examples of documentation that may be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.

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 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.

Board Membership: 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:

 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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201156

    Original file (ND1201156.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    As such, by a vote of 5-0, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s characterization of service, as issued, was inequitable and that relief was warranted with an upgrade to Honorable. Narrative Reason for Separation: In accordance with the 20 September 2011 Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) memorandum regarding the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, service discharge review boards should normally grant requests to change the narrative reason for discharge wherein...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700847

    Original file (ND0700847.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Date: 20071220Location:Washington D.C Representation: Discussion Issue 1: either which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Administrative Corrections to the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800335

    Original file (ND0800335.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents SubmittedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or Medical Record: Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Substance Abuse: Criminal Records: Family/Personal Status: Community Service: References: Additional Statements From Applicant: From Representation: From Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe) Excerpts from USN Aeromedical Reference and Waiver Guide, Department of Veterans...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700860

    Original file (ND0700860.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Without additional, credible information to consider, the Board determined that an upgrade would be inappropriate.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. Discharge Process NOT FOUND IN RECORD Types of Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By BoardRelated to Military Service: Service and/or Medical Record:Other...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600990

    Original file (ND0600990.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Medical Record Entries, Elements of Discharge and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Articles86, Absence without...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701081

    Original file (ND0701081.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct which resulted in the Applicant’s discharge and characterization of his service. 20030221: Applicant discharged. Date Applicant Responded to Notification: 20030214 Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s) (date) Administrative Board GCMCA review Separation Authority (date): Commanding Officer, Navy Recruiting District Indianapolis...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801821

    Original file (MD0801821.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined a change in the Narrative Reason was not warranted.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900110

    Original file (ND0900110.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : 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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701254

    Original file (MD0701254.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall HOMOSEXUAL ACT.Discussion : either which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge. Additionally, the Board has no authority to...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801945

    Original file (MD0801945.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade based on youth and immaturity would be inappropriateThe NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If...