RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-02495

	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded to honorable due to the change in the federal law, it is now considered discrimination to be discharged for homosexual acts.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force airman.

On 13 Apr 89, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, para 5-46 and 5-35 for Homosexual act and misconduct, minor disciplinary infractions.
The reasons for the action were as follows:

a.	On or about 27 Jan 89, he received a traffic ticket for failing to clear while backing his vehicle and failing to use available personnel for spotting.

b.	On or about 4 Mar 89, without authority, he was absent from his place of duty.

c.	On or about 27 Mar 89, he made a statement that he was a homosexual.

d.	Between 1 Jan 89 and 6 Apr 89, he wrote 12 bad checks totaling $275.16.

	e.	During the month of Jan 89, he wrote three bad checks totaling $37.00.

On 18 Apr 89, the discharge action was found legally sufficient, and the discharge authority approved the recommendation on 26 Apr 89.

On 2 May 89, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. 

On 10 Sep 11, the Under Secretary of Defense issued guidance pertaining to correction of military records requests resulting from the repeal of Title10, 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-re-enter 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."

On 17 Oct 17, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an injustice.  It appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the commander’s discretion.   In a memorandum, dated 20 Sep 11, 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 does not meet these requirements.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2017-02495 in Executive Session on 6 Jun 18:

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, dated 5 May 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Letter, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 17 Oct 17.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9 for Docket Number BC-2017-02495.