Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100618

Original file (ND1100618.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-PR3, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20110104

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:         NONE              Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20021024     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20060714      Highest Rank/Rate: PR2
Length of Service:
         Inactive:        Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 8 D a y ( s )
         Active   Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 10 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 65
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.7 ( 3 )      Behavior: 3.3 ( 3 )        OTA: 3.50

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 200 6 062 9 :      Article (General article, disorderly conduct, drunkenness , o/o 20060605 )
         Awarded: (to E-4) Suspended:

S CM :

SPCM:

C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20050629 :       For substandard performance and conduct .

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         Block 2, DEPARTMENT, COMPONENT AND BRANCH , should read: “ US N R ”

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:                  Oth er Documentation:
                  Additional Statements :
         From Applicant:          From /To Representation:          From /To Congress m ember :

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 29 April 2005 until
15 June 2008, 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 .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. Applicant seeks a discharge upgrade to obtain veteran education benefits based on recent repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

Decision

Date: 20 1 1 09 15 Location: Washington D.C . R epresentation :

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 discharg e if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of g overnment al affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Applicant did not identify any decisional issues for the Board ’s consideration . However, the Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and proprie ty. The Applicant’s record of service included one NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) retention warning for substandard performance and conduct (29 Jun 2005) and one for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 134 ( Disorderly conduct, drunkenness, o/o 5 Jun 2006). The record revealed that on 1 Jun 2006, the Applicant made a statement to the Command Master Chief (CMC) that he had been “somewhat harassed” on a recent detachment for being gay; that he was struggling with his “alternative lifestyle” for quite some time; and that he was gay. He also stated he believed the Navy was not a place for him to be gay. Although he felt the harassment was not a direct attack on him and that he didn’t feel threatened at any time, he felt he just could not stay in the Navy any longer. On 2 Jun 200 6 , the Applicant requested a meeting with the C ommanding O fficer (CO) , which was granted. At the meeting, also attended by the Applicant’s Officer in Charge (OIC) and the CMC, the Applicant related to the CO that he had struggled with his personal situation for some time, and he felt he could no longer keep his alternative lifestyle confidential at which time he openly declared his sexual preference as being homosexual. The CO questioned the Applicant further to a s certain whether the timing of his admission was due to the verbal harassment he received at a recent unit detachment in Canada or the upcoming deployment to the Central Command area of responsibility. The Applicant stated neither event was the primary factor, but instead his overall weariness with keeping his alternative lifestyle a secret from the Navy. The Applicant expressed his desire to remain in the Navy, but recognized the reality of his situation and its incompatibility with current Department of Defense policy.

Based on the statements made by the Applicant to his chain of command and his commanding officer’s belief that the Applicant’s statements were credible, the Applicant’s command administratively processed him for separation , which wa s mandatory per the Naval Military Personnel Manual . When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure on 9 Jun 2006 , the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, request an administrative separation board , and to 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. On 16 Jun 2006, the Applicant’s Commanding Officer submitted a request for administrative separation of the Applicant from the Navy with the recommendation for an Honorable discharge. On 29 Jun 2006, the Commander, Navy Personnel Command directed that the Applicant be separated from the Navy with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to Homosexual Admission . The discharge was effected on 14 Jul 2006.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks a discharge upgrade to obtain veteran education benefits based on recent repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB as 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.

S ummary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice, r ecord e ntries and the administrative separation p rocess, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall 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.

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

Similar Decisions

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100701

Original file (ND1100701.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Representation: NONE By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .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...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100800

Original file (ND1100800.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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 Accordingly, and pursuant to the guidance set forth in the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel & Readiness) Memorandum (Correction of Military Records Following Repeal of Section 654 of Title 10, U.S. Code), dated 20 Sep 2011, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301324

Original file (ND1301324.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101229

Original file (ND1101229.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

On 6 Jun 2007, the Commander, Navy Personnel Command directed that the Applicant be separated from the Navy with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to Homosexual Admission. ” 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200295

Original file (ND1200295.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Narrative Reason for Discharge: 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 Homosexual Admission was the only basis for discharge. However, pursuant to Public Law 111-321, and in accordance with the guidance set forth in the Under Secretary of Defense (P&R)...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100879

Original file (ND1100879.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Applicant seeks a discharge upgrade to reenlist in the U.S. Armed Forces.2. The Applicant’s Commanding Officer submitted a request for administrative separation of the Applicant to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command (PERSCOM) with a recommendation for an Honorable discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100541

Original file (ND1100541.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Applicant seeks a discharge upgrade and RE code change to reenlist in the U.S. Armed Forces.2. 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 Moreover, pursuant to Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel & Readiness) Memorandum...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101690

Original file (MD1101690.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

During his conversation with the counselor, the Applicant stated his reason for seeking counseling was concern for his safety after watching a movie with some fellow classmates and hearing them make general statements about homosexuals in the Marine Corps. ” 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. ...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500040

Original file (ND1500040.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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 Homosexual Admission was the only basis for discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200302

Original file (ND1200302.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Narrative Reason for Discharge: In accordance with the 20 September 2011 Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) memorandum regarding the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, ” service discharge review boards should normally consider granting requests to change the narrative reason for discharge wherein Homosexual Admission was the only basis for discharge and no other aggravating factors were involved. However, pursuant to Public Law 111-321, and in accordance with the guidance...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100618

Similar Decisions