RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2017-03119

	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He admits to propositioning one person; however, the subordinate was not an act but a relaying of information that he was bi-sexual.  No act was intended or taken.  Being homosexual is no longer a reason for discharge.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force staff sergeant.

On 9 Dec 74, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, chapter 2, paragraph 2-104b(1), section H , for homosexual acts.  

On 11 Feb 75, the discharge action was found legally sufficient, and the discharge authority approved the recommendation for a general (under honorable conditions) discharge on 12 Feb 75.

On 18 Feb 75, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He served 11 years and 12 days total active service.

On 15 Apr 82, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request that his general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.  The board concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, provided full administrative due process, and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

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 20 Sep 11, 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.”

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibits C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM does not recommend upgrading the service characterization to honorable due to the presence of aggravating factors in the applicant’s record; however, pursuant to the Under Secretary’s memo, it is appropriate to change the narrative reason and separation program designator code.  The discharge was properly processed according to the applicable regulation at the time and the record indicates that the discharge was based solely on DADT or a similar policy.  However, the record shows that one of the applicant’s admitted incidents of homosexual proposition was made to a military subordinate.  This is considered an aggravating factor within the discharge itself.  The instance of soliciting a subordinate while in a position of authority prevents a recommendation of an honorable character of service.  The Board could consider granting the applicant’s request for upgrade of the character of service based on clemency.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA does not recommend upgrading the service characterization to honorable due to the presence of aggravating factors, in the applicant’s record; however, pursuant to the Under Secretary’s memo, it is appropriate to change the narrative reason and separation program designator code.  The applicant’s discharge was based solely on a policy similar to DADT prior to enactment of DADT.  However, the allegations that formed the basis for the discharge involve one male active duty member and one male civilian, both of whom the applicant touched their genitals without their consent.  The active duty member stated he did not report the incident at first because he thought it was isolated, but changed his mind when he heard about the second incident with the civilian. The applicant waived his right to a discharge board, so there is no further information from either the active duty member or the civilian.  The Under Secretary’s memo states that the BCMR “may change the narrative reason for the discharge, upgrade the characterization of discharge, or take both actions.”  It also states that “the award of an honorable…discharge should normally be considered to indicate the absence of aggravating factors.”  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 31 May 18 for comment (Exhibit E), but has received no response.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not timely filed.

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

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concurs with the opinions and recommendations of DP2STM and AFPC/JA and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for their conclusion the applicant is the victim of an injustice.  Therefore, the Board recommends the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

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 18 Feb 75, he was discharged with a narrative reason for separation of “Secretarial Authority” and a separation program designator code of “JFF.” 

However, regarding the remainder of the applicant’s request, the Board recommends the applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice and the application could 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-2017-03119 in Executive Session on 11 Jul 18:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

All members voted to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A: Applicant’s application, DD Form 149, dated 29 Jun 17.
Exhibit B: Documentary evidence, including excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C: Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 16 May 18.
Exhibit D: Advisory opinion, AFPC/JA, dated 24 May 18.
Exhibit E: Notification of Advisories, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 31 May 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9 pertaining to Docket Number BC-2017-03119.