RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00417 XXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected as follows: a. Block 14, Military Education, Basic Military Training, 6 Weeks, Apr 99, corrected to reflect completed in Apr “98”. (Administratively Corrected). b. Block 15a, Member contributed to Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance Program (VEAP), corrected to reflect “Yes.” c. Block 18, Remarks, corrected to remove the statement “Member did not complete first full term of service.” d. Block 26, Separation code, “HRB” corrected based on the repeal of “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy. e. Block 27, Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code, “2C” corrected based on the repeal of “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy. f. Block 28, Narrative reason for separation, “Homosexual Admission” corrected based on the repeal of “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was unjustly forced out of the Air Force and discharged due to homosexuality. In addition, the date he graduated Basic Military Training listed on his DD Form 214 is incorrect. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 11 Mar 98, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 23 Mar 98, the applicant signed a DD Form 2366, Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984 (MGIB), in which he acknowledged his understanding that he was automatically enrolled into the MGIB unless he exercised the option of disenrollment. Section 4, Statement of Disenrollment, is not dated or signed. On 7 Jan 99, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending him for discharge for homosexual conduct in accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, paragraph 5.36. On 20 Jan 99, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and found it factual, procedurally correct, and legally sufficient. On 29 Jan 99, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge. On 2 Feb 99, the applicant was furnished an Honorable discharge, and was credited with 10 months and 22 days of active service. On 24 Aug 15, AFPC/DPSIT requested AFPC/DPSOR correct the applicant’s DD Form 214, Block 14, Military Education, Basic Military Training, 6 Weeks, Apr “99”, to reflect Apr “98.” The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are included at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR-SEP recommends the Board approve the applicant’s request to change the narrative reason for separation and corresponding Separation Program Designator (SPD) code, indicating there is evidence of an error or injustice. However, they recommend the Board deny the applicant’s request to remove the statement in Block 18 of his DD Form 214: “Member did not complete first full term of service.” On 10 Sep 11, the Under Secretary of Defense issued guidance pertaining to correction of military records requests resulting from the repeal of Title 10, Section 654, commonly known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT)”. An excerpt from the aforementioned guidance is provided below: “Effective September 20, 2011, Service DRBs should normally grant requests to change the narrative reason for a discharge (the change should be “Secretarial Authority” (Separation program Designator Code (SPD) code JFF), requests to re-characterize the discharge to honorable, and/or requests to change the reentry code to an immediately-eligible-to-renter category (the new RE code should be 1J) when both of the following conditions are met: (1) the original discharge was based solely upon 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. Although each request must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, the award of an honorable or general discharge should normally be considered to indicate the absence of aggravating factors.” Although the discharge was properly processed according to the applicable regulation, the applicant’s discharge record indicates discharge was based solely on DADT. There does not appear to be any additional misconduct or aggravating factors in the record. This is further evidenced by the Honorable discharge that the applicant received. Therefore, they recommend the board approve the applicant’s request to change the narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority” and the corresponding SPD code to “JFF.” With regards to the statement in the remarks section of the DD Form 214, “Member did not complete first full term of service”; this is correct as indicated. At the time of the applicant’s discharge, he had only served 10 months and 22 days of a 4 year enlistment contract. This statement refers to the fact that he did not complete his entire enlistment contract at the time of his discharge from active duty. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends the Board approve correcting the applicant’s RE code. On 10 Sep 11, the Under Secretary of Defense issued guidance to repeal DADT policy. The guidance stated requests to change the RE code to “1J” should be granted for members separated under DADT or similar policy that did not involve aggravating factors. A thorough search of applicant’s record did not reveal any aggravating factors. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSIT recommends the Board deny the applicant’s request to correct the record to indicate he participated in VEAP. After a thorough review of the applicant’s records, it was verified the applicant’s DD Form 214 is correct; as he did not contribute to the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance Program; but, rather signed up for the Montgomery GI Bill by completing and signing DD Form 2366, Section 2c A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the applicant on 26 Oct 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice with respect to the statements on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, in Block 15a or 18. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that relief beyond that already granted administratively is not warranted. While Block 15a reflects the following statement “Member did not complete first full term of service” the Board notes at the time of the applicant’s discharge, he had only served 10 months and 22 days of a 4 year enlistment contract. The statement refers to the fact that he did not complete his entire enlistment contract at the time of his discharge from active duty and therefore is correct. With regards to Block 18 and whether or not he contributed to Post-Vietnam era veterans’ education assistance program; we note the documentation listed in the applicant’s record proves, rather, he signed up for the Montgomery GI Bill by completing and signing DD Form 2366, Section 2c. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this portion of his application. 4. Notwithstanding the above recommendation, sufficient relevant evidence of an error or injustice with regard to the applicant’s narrative reason for separation, Separation Program Designator code (SPD) and Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code. In a memorandum, dated 20 Sep 11, the Under Secretary of Defense published guidance that Service Discharge Review Boards should normally grant requests if 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, the applicant’s discharge meets these requirements. Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s record be corrected as indicated below. 5. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 2 February 1999, the applicant was issued a narrative reason for separation of “Secretarial Authority,” a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “JFF,” and a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code of “1J,” in conjunction with his Honorable discharge. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00417 in Executive Session on 9 Dec 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Dec 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR-SEP, dated 8 Jul 15. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 16 Jul 15. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 17 Sep 15. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Oct 15.