RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01777 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was called into what he believes was the judge advocate’s office. He was then asked if he had any homosexual tendencies, to which he admitted that he had. To his dismay, a couple of months later he received an undesirable discharge. He was ashamed of this separation and told no one, especially family and friends. At the age of 24 he married a Catholic girl and through the teachings of the church, he learned his behavior was an affront to God. If the same rules were applied 60 years ago as they are today in an era of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), he would not have been "asked" and he certainly would not have "told." He is 80 years old and humbly begs the Board to consider upgrading his discharge. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States, Decree Changing Name, and Medicare Health Insurance Card. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 22 Aug 1952 the applicant enlisted in the Air Force and on 21 Oct 1953, he was discharged under the provisions of AFR 35- 66, Discharge of Homosexuals, with an undesirable character of service. ________________________________________________________________ ? AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. DPSOR states that on 10 Sep 2011, the Under Secretary of Defense issued guidance pertaining to correction of military record requests resulting from the repeal of Title 10, § 654, commonly known as DADT. Although the discharge was properly processed according to the applicable regulation, the applicant's discharge record indicates his discharge was based solely on DADT or a similar policy; however, there were aggravating factors. The applicant’s record includes misconduct as he was court-martialed for a violation of Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL. Given this misconduct in the applicant's record, DPSOR recommends against a change to his service characterization. Notwithstanding the above, DPSOR recommends his narrative reason for separation be changed to "Secretarial Authority," and his separation code be changed to “JFF.” At the time of his separation his Reentry (RE) code should have reflected “2;” however, an RE code was not reflected on his DD Form 214. After corresponding with AFPC/DPSOA, DPSOR recommends a “2” RE code be added to applicant's DD Form 214. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Since the events occurred almost 60 years ago, he does not fully understand what is meant by “or words to that effect” in DPSOR’s statement “Applicant made a statement that he was a homosexual or words to the effect and engaged in homosexual acts with another airman.” He admitted to some youthful indiscretion in his teens, but not with other airmen and certainly not on any military installation. He also questions whether he was offered counsel and insists he would have taken advantage of a lawyer to prevent his receiving an undesirable discharge. He admits that he was AWOL for 22 days. He is an only child and he went to see his mother who was in critical condition. Being AWOL was an unwise and serious breach of military rules. However, he has paid for that error by spending 30 days in the stockade. He is now 80 years of age, has been happily married for over 56 years and has five grandchildren. After he is gone he does not want his heirs to remember him as an "undesirable" person. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice. In light of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), it would be appropriate to grant the requested relief. In a memorandum, dated 20 Sep 2011, the Under Secretary of Defense published guidance that Service Discharge Review Boards should normally grant requests to change the narrative reason for discharge, separation code, re-characterize the discharge to Honorable, and/or requests to change the reentry code to an immediately-eligible-to-reenter category when the following conditions are met: (1) the original discharge was based solely on DADT or a similar policy in place prior to enactment of DADT and (2) there were no aggravating factors in the record, such as misconduct. Based on our review of the evidence of record, it is our opinion that the applicant's discharge meets these requirements. While AFPC/DPSOR states there were aggravating factors, we note the applicant served his punishment and was allowed to continue to serve. Moreover, given that the sole basis for his discharge was his homosexual conduct, we find it in the interest of justice to recommend the applicant's record be corrected as indicated below. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that at the time of his 21 October 1953 discharge, the narrative reason for his separation was Secretarial Authority with a separation code of “JFF” and a reenlistment code of “1,” and that he was furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate. ________________________________________________________________ ? The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 4 Feb 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence pertaining to BC-2013-01777 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Apr 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 22 Jun 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 2013 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Nov 2013. 4 4