Navy Veteran Denied Retirement Benefits After 24 Years Due to Administrative Loophole

After 24 years of service, a Navy veteran was denied retirement benefits, a ceremony, and a pension due to an administrative decision.

During a deployment, an unintentional administrative issue, years later and on a separate enlistment, led to a:
-non-judicial punishment (NJP), with suspended punishments remitted.
-An Administrative Separation (ADSEP) Board reviewed the case, found no basis for separation, and recommended retention with an Honorable discharge and full benefits.

Despite this, Navy Personnel Command (PERS-832) used the “Best Interest of the Service” (BIOTS) clause to separate the veteran without new evidence or charges, overriding the board’s ruling and command endorsements.

The veteran was eligible for Fleet Reserve transfer (MILPERSMAN 1830-040) but was denied.

Requests for redress via Inspector General complaints and congressional inquiries were met with inaccurate (omission, misrepresentation, false statement) responses from the navy or no action.

Policies requiring an Honorable discharge (MILPERSMAN 1910-306) and Secretary of the Navy approval “Sanctuary Law” for long-serving members were inaccessible due to the loophole.

This case raises concerns about the misuse of discretionary clauses and lack of due process for long-serving veterans.

Seeking advice on advocating for reform, ensuring accountability, or correcting misleading responses and as a Hail Mary, attaining earned benefits.

Questions:
• Has anyone experienced similar issues with Navy administrative separations?

• What steps can be taken to challenge such decisions or push for policy reform?

• Are there organizations that support veterans in these situations?

Location: U.S.A.