RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04030 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reason for separation “Unsuitability,” be changed. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has never been a threat to national security. His proclivity towards cross-dressing did not impair him from performing his duties. The applicant believes the Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider his untimely application because factual information about cross-dressing did not exist at the time of his discharge. In support of his request the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of his DD Forms 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge; information extracted from the internet and various other documents associated with his request. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 20 January 1958, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 13 September 1963, he was notified by his commander that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-16, Discharge for Unsuitability. The reason for this action was that on 6 September 1963, he exhibited traits of a severe character and behavior disorder, specifically, sexual deviation, type transvestism and fetishism by appearing on the streets dressed in feminine attire. On 13 and 16 September 1963, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the Discharge Notification, waived his right to appear before a board of officers and submitted a statement in his own behalf. On 17 September 1963, the discharge authority directed he be discharged and furnished an honorable discharge certificate. On 18 September 1963, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Air Force. The authority and reason for discharge is AFR 39-16, SDN 469, which denotes “Unsuitability.” He served a total of 5 years, 8 months and 29 days of active service. According to AFHQ – 02077, Review of Discharge of Separation, on 24 July 1964, the applicant was notified that the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) concluded that the type of discharge he received was equitable and proper and that a waiver to permit reenlistment was disapproved. The AFDRB referred his application to the AFBCMR for further consideration. On 29 July 1964, the AFBCMR denied his request stating that he failed to establish a showing of probable error or injustice. THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. In accordance with AFR 39-16, airmen were subject to discharge for unsuitability when one or more character and behavior disorders existed. The commander clearly believed that the applicant's incident fell within the aforementioned conditions to warrant discharge. AFR 39-16 also indicates that individuals separated under these conditions will be furnished with an honorable discharge. The applicant's administrative discharge, narrative reason for discharge, and separation code were applied appropriately in this case. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. He provided no facts warranting a change to his separation code or narrative reason for separation. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the applicant's characterization of service, separation code and narrative reason for separation were consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The reason that he allowed so much time to lapse before challenging his discharge is that at the time very little, if any, factual information existed that would shed light on the causes of gender variance. He does not hold the military accountable as they were as woefully lacking factual resources concerning the subject as he was. He submitted a number of documents, particularly from the American Psychiatric and Psychological Association updating and revising their classification on this grossly misunderstood arena of human behavior. For a stigma to be revised and removed signifies that it was unduly and unjustly applied in the beginning. This does not lessen the impact it has caused him and others in similar situations. Based on what is now known about cross-dressing, he requests reconsideration of his reason for discharge. In further support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fifth Edition (DSM-V), numerous articles and other documents associated with his appeal. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant acknowledges that attitudes, customs, and policies regarding same sex relationships have evolved over time and, indeed, no longer precludes acceptance or continuation of active duty with this regard. Surgically and hormonally-induced gender changes have become common among the American population as well. However, with respect to military service, there remains an existing analogous policy that may address the applicant's circumstances; despite the arguments he has put forth regarding the embryonic origins of sexual differentiation. Specifically, under AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.11.9.5, Transsexualism or Gender Identity Disorder of Adolescence or Adulthood [GIDAANT] [and] non-transsexual type GIDAANT is disqualifying for continued military service. While such behavior in private may not interfere with military service or normal intellectual functioning, it is apparent that the overt and open display was viewed as incompatible with military service. Finally, the Medical Consultant finds the applicant's petition has not been timely submitted for an event occurring in 1963. Nevertheless, in view of today's acceptance of this phenomenon in civilian life, the Board may consider changing the reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority if viewed as an unjust impediment to the applicant's social and occupational opportunities. The complete Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit F . APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant clarifies some up the issues addressed by the BCMR Medical Consultant who appears to be addressing the subject of homosexuality and associated relationships. This has nothing to do with cross-dressing. He has been married for 55 years. Secondly “gender identity disorder” has been removed from the DSM-V. Finally with regard to his untimely application, as he explained previously, in 1963 there was no internet nor had much research been conducted concerning gender variance; therefore he had no source on which to draw legitimate arguments. He appreciates that the military maintains more stringent requirements regarding the conduct of its members. Clinicians have pointed out that transgender behavior can be controlled by the individual who is encumbered with it, as opposed to alcoholism or drug addiction. Had he been afforded an opportunity to demonstrate that he could control his proclivity to cross-dress he could have done so. However, he was only given a choice of an immediate discharge or face an inquiry or court martial. In further support of his request, the applicant provides additional internet documents relating to transgender issues and cross-dressing. His complete submission with attachments, is at Exhibit H. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. The applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, Correction of Military Records and AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records. The applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the merits. Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to file in a timely manner. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely. ? The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2013-04030 in Executive Session on 9 September 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 August 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 31 December 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 April 2014. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 18 April 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit F. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 3 July 2014. Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 July 2014. Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, 11 August 2014, w/atchs. 5 6