ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
IN THE CASE OF:   BOARD DATE: 8 December 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210008626 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: change of her: 
. 
narrative reason for separation 

. 
reentry (RE) code 


. separation code APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
. 
DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge) 

. 
DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 

. 
Honorable Discharge Certificate 

. 
Certificate of Affiliation 

. 
Certificate of Appreciation 

. 
Army Achievement Medal Certificate 


FACTS: 
1. 
The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10 (Armed Forces), United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b) (Correction of Military Records: Claims Incident Thereto).  However, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 

2. 
The applicant states, in effect, she is requesting the change because of the judgements made against her when she has to show proof of service with her DD Form 214 and because of the mental anguish she's lived with day in and out knowing the narrative reason is why she was discharged. The reason for her discharge is no longer against the law. Had she not been separated, she would still be serving in the Army. 

3. 
The applicant provides the following documents, not contained in her service record, for the Board's review: 


a. An Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 19 November 2007. 
b. 
A Certificate of Affiliation for the United States Army Quartermaster Corps Regiment. 

b. 
A Certificate of Appreciation for excellence in duty and performance, dated 3 August 2007. 

d. 
An Army Achievement Medal Certificate for exemplary performance during the food service specialist advanced individual training (AIT), from 9 June 2007 to 8 August 2007. 


4. 
On 13 March 2007, at the age of 24 years old, enlisted in the US Army Reserve (USAR) delayed entry program (DEP) for a period of 8 years. On 27 March 2007, she was discharged from the USAR DEP and entered active duty for a period of 3 years and 20 weeks. Her enlisted record brief (ERB), dated 8 November 2007, shows she entered basic training on 27 March 2007 and AIT for the military occupation specialty (MOS) of 92G (Food Service Specialist) on 11 June 2007. She arrived at her first duty station in Alaska on 6 September 2007. 

5. 
On 8 September 2007, the applicant made a sworn statement, which states, in effect: 


a. 
On 8 September 2007, she was very upset and felt she needed to talk to someone before she did something really stupid. She went to staff duty and told the specialist (SPC) that she was really shaky. She couldn't eat and couldn't sleep. She was thinking of harming herself. He immediately called the staff sergeant (SSG) and told him what the applicant had said. The SPC told her to sit in the office with him until the SSG arrived. She was still upset, at that point. 

b. 
When the SSG arrived, he asked the SPC to exit the office and asked the applicant what was going on. She told the SSG she couldn't be there and she wanted out of the Army. He asked her why and at first the applicant hesitated to tell him because she didn't want to tell him about what was going on with her personally. She didn't want him to think she was trying to use the excuse to get out of the military. 

c. 
She then told the SSG her mom had heart issues and she was scared being so far away from her. She also told the SSG when she went home on leave after AIT that her partner of two year found out she had cancer. The applicant told the SSG she needed to be out of the Army and there for her girlfriend. She admitted to being a homosexual. 

d. 
The SSG told her he had to document what she was telling him, to which she replied it was okay. He also informed her that her separation could take a year to process. She told the SSG if she had to stay longer than necessary, she would ill herself. She really needed to be out of the Army. She couldn't deal with the stress she 


was experiencing. The SSG put her on an hourly watch and had staff duty check on her every hour. 
6. 
Her service record contained sworn statements from the SSG and SPC reiterating what was told in the applicant's sworn statement. 

7. 
On 11 September 2007, the applicant underwent a Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, which shows she was in a depressed mood. She had no psychiatric disease or defect that warranted disposition through medical channels and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. She was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with acute depressed mood. 

8. 
On 12 September 2007, the applicant completed a Rights Warning Procedure Waiver, stating she would make a statement. On the same date, she made a sworn statement stating she understood the sworn statement she made on 8 September 2007 could be used to separate her from the Army. 

9. 
On 12 September 2007, the applicant underwent a Report of Medical Examination, which shows she was qualified for service. Her report of Medical History shows she was in good health. She stated, in effect, she had sustained a knee injury, in basic training, to her left knee during an obstacle course. She had been experiencing off an on pain with it every since. Sometimes when she ran or walked it felt like it popped out of place. Her menstrual cycle had also been messed up. 

10. 
In an undated memorandum, the applicant's commander advised her in writing of her intent to separate the applicant under the provisions of chapter 15 (Discharge for Homosexual Conduct), paragraph 15-3b (Criteria for Discharge – The Soldier has Made a Statement affirming Homosexuality) Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separation). The commander's stated reason for this action was the applicant's admission she was a homosexual. The commander was recommending an honorable discharge but the separation authority was not bound by her recommendation as to characterization of service. 

11. 
On 24 October 2007, the applicant acknowledged she was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action; she affirmed she was told of the rights available to him and the effect of waiving those rights. She waived her right to a separation board on the condition she receive an honorable discharge. She chose not to submit a statement in her own behalf. 

12. 
Her chain of command recommended approval of the separation with an honorable discharge. On 7 November 2007, the appropriate separation authority approved the commander's recommendation and directed the applicant's honorable discharge and waived rehabilitation of the applicant. 

13. 
On 19 November 2007, she was discharged accordingly. Her DD Form 214 shows she completed 7 months and 23 days of her term of service. She was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the Army Service Ribbon. It also shows: 

. 
Character of Service -Honorable 

. 
Narrative Reason for Separation -Homosexual Conduct (Admission) 

. 
Separation Code -JRB 

. 
RE Code -4 



14. 
The applicant is requesting a change in her narrative reason for separation, separation code, and RE Code, due to the stigma she receives when she has to show her DD Form 214 to prove her service. 

15. 
In 1993, the "Don't Ask – Don't Tell" (DADT) policy was implemented; under this policy the military was banned from investigating service members based on their sexual orientation. In 2011, the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) issued guidance stating Boards should normally grant requests for character of service upgrades when the former Soldier's separation was due to DADT or a similar earlier policy.  The guidance authorized Boards to amend the Soldier's narrative reason for discharge, modify their character of service to honorable, and change the reentry (RE) code to reflect immediate eligibility for reentry.  For the above upgrades to be warranted, the original discharge had to be based solely on DADT (or a similar policy in place prior to enactment of DADT), and no other aggravating factors in the record, such as misconduct. 


BOARD DISCUSSION: 
1. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found the relief was warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records and published DoD guidance for consideration of 
discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant’s statement, her 
record of service, nature and reason for her separation. The applicant was questioned about her sexual orientation and her response influenced the discharge determination. “In light of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" with commensurate changes in law regarding homosexuality, the Board determined there is sufficient evidence to grant relief. 
2. Prior to closing the case, the Board concurred with the administrative notes below and recommended the correction is completed to more accurately depict the military service of the applicant. 
BOARD VOTE: 
Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 
XXX XXX XX GRANT FULL RELIEF 
: : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 
: : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING 
: : : DENY APPLICATION 
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 
In addition to the administrative notes annotated by the Analyst of Record (below the signature), the Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by issuing the applicant a new DD Form 214 for the period ending 19 November 2007 showing in: 
• 
item 25 (Separation Authority):  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-3 

• 
item 26 (Separation Code):  JFF 

• 
item 27 (Reentry Code):  1 

• 
item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation):  Secretarial Authority 


X 
CHAIRPERSON 
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. 
ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): 
The applicant submitted an Army Achievement Medal Certificate showing she was awarded the award for exemplary performance during the 92G Food Service Specialist advanced individual training from 9 June 2007 to 8 August 2007. The awarded was approved through orders on 1 August 2007. The award is not included on her DD Form 214. Correct her DD Form 214 for the period ending 19 November 2007 by adding the Army Achievement Medal. 
REFERENCES: 
1. 
Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 

2. 
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 15 (Discharge for Homosexual Conduct) stated homosexual conduct was grounds for separation, and commanders could consider preservice, prior service, and current service homosexual conduct when determining if a Soldier should be separated. The term "homosexual conduct" included acts and/or statements that demonstrated the propensity or intent to engage in homosexual behavior.  Commanders were to discharge Soldiers when it was determined they had made statements affirming their homosexuality, had married or attempted to marry a person of the same sex, and/or had engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another individual to engage in homosexual acts. An under honorable conditions character of service was typically granted, except in cases where the Soldier had engaged in homosexual behavior by force, coercion, with a person under 16, or under other aggravating conditions. 

3. 
The Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell (DADT) policy was implemented in 1993 during the Clinton administration. This policy banned the military from investigating service members about their sexual orientation.  Under that policy, service members may be investigated and administratively discharged if they made a statement that they were lesbian, gay or bisexual; engaged in physical contact with someone of the same sex for the purposes of sexual gratification; or married, or attempted to marry, someone of the same sex. 

4. 
Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) memorandum, dated 20 September 2011, subject: Correction of Military Records Following Repeal of Section 654 of Title 10, U.S. Code, provides policy guidance for Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to follow when taking action on applications from former service members discharged under DADT or prior policies. The memorandum states that, effective 20 September 2011, Service DRBs should normally grant requests, in these cases, to change the: 

. 
narrative reason for discharge (the change should be to "Secretarial Authority" SPD Code JFF) 

. 
characterization of the discharge to honorable 

. 
the RE code to an immediately-eligible-to-reenter category 



5. 
For the above upgrades to be warranted, the memorandum states both of the following conditions must have been met the original discharge was based solely on DADT or a similar policy in place prior to enactment of DADT and there were no aggravating factors in the record, such as misconduct. 

6. 
The memorandum further states that 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. 

7. 
The memorandum also recognized that although BCM/NRs have a significantly broader scope of review and are authorized to provide much more comprehensive remedies than are available from the DRBs, it is DOD policy that broad, retroactive corrections of records from applicants discharged under DADT [or prior policies] are not warranted.  Although DADT is repealed effective 20 September 2011, it was the law and reflected the view of Congress during the period it was the law.  Similarly, DOD regulations implementing various aspects of DADT [or prior policies] were valid regulations during those same or prior periods. Thus, the issuance of a discharge under DADT [or prior policies] should not by itself be considered to constitute an error or injustice that would invalidate an otherwise properly-taken discharge action. 


// NOTHING FOLLOWS //