RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02432
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

	 

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded to honorable.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge should be upgraded to honorable.

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty.

His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. 

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force on 26 Nov 80.  
The applicant was notified by his commander that he was 
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFR 39-10, Paragraph 5-35 (Homosexuality).  The 
specific reason for this action was for committing homosexual 
acts with persons under the age of 16 years; under conditions of 
force and coercion.  The applicant confessed to having sexual 
incidents with young boys.  

A memorandum from the 17 AF/JAV (Deputy Staff Judge Advocate), 
dated 2 Apr 85, stated that all of the applicant’s acts were 
serious.   

The applicant received an UOTHC discharge after serving over 15 
years on active duty.  

On 20 Sep 11, the law commonly known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” 
(DADT), 10 USC 654, was repealed.  The Department of Defense 
subsequently issued guidance indicating that Service Discharge 
Review Boards (DRB) should normally grant requests to change the 
narrative reason for a discharge, requests to re-characterize 
the discharge to honorable, and/or requests to change the 
reentry code when both of the following conditions were 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.

________________________________________________________________
_

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 error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice 
that occurred in the discharge processing.  In this respect, we 
note that while the repeal of DADT provides a basis for 
correcting the record of certain affected service members, 
specific criteria must generally be met:  (1) the original 
discharge must have been based solely on DADT or a similar 
policy in place prior to enactment of DADT and (2) there must be 
no aggravating factors in the record, such as misconduct.  The 
circumstances of the applicant’s discharge do not meet these 
criteria.  The applicant was furnished a under other than 
honorable conditions discharge due to substantiated misconduct 
on his part.  Based on the evidence of record, we cannot 
conclude that clemency is warranted in this case.  Therefore, we 
find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application.

________________________________________________________________
_

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the 
submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered 
with this application.

________________________________________________________________
_

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-02432 in Executive Session on 6 Feb 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence for was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 May 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.




                                   
                                   Chair











5