RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1999-01160
					INDEX CODE: 110.00

					COUNSEL: NONE

					HEARING DESIRED: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is not nor has he ever been a homosexual.  He states that he was falsely accused.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 April 1956 in the grade of airman basic for a period of 4 years.

On 13 April 1959, applicant’s commander recommended he be involuntarily discharged for homosexuality.  Reasons for the commander’s recommendation was that the applicant made a signed statement to the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI) indicating his homosexual involvement with another male member.  The commander advised the applicant he had a right to consult counsel and appear before a Board of Officers or submit written statements in his own behalf.  Applicant indicated that counsel had been afforded him and that he elected to waive an appearance before a Board of Officers.  He did, however, submit a statement requesting that his discharge be given under honorable conditions since he planned to return to school to become a minister after discharge.

On 24 July 1959, the discharge authority approved the recommendation for discharge for unfitness and directed the applicant be issued an undesirable discharge certificate.

On 14 August 1959, he was discharged in the grade of airman second class, under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness - Homosexual), receiving an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  He had completed 3 years, 4 months and 12 days of total active military service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of investigation, Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit E).

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and states that the case has been reviewed and the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The applicant was provided full administrative due process and the records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  The applicant provided no facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge he received.  Accordingly, they recommend denial of applicant's request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 3 September 1999, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or injustice.  Applicant states that he was falsely accused; however, the evidence before this Board reveals that he provided a statement indicating his involvement with another airman.  In view of the above determination, we are in agreement with the comments and recommendation of the Air Force.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on this application. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 3 February 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 April 1999.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 August 1999.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 September 1999.