RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04382 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His service in the Air Force was honorable. He is seeking employment on Government facilities. Prior career opportunities have been biased. In support of the applicant’s appeal, he provides a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 December 1986. The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Homosexuality). Specifically, on or about 1 March 1991 and 21 June 1993, the applicant did at various locations engage in an ongoing homosexual relationship and did engage in homosexual activity. The applicant was advised of his rights in the matter. In a legal review of the case file, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient. The staff judge advocate stated that on 22 October 1993, the applicant unconditionally waived his right to an administrative discharge board and requested a general discharge. The staff judge advocate recommended the applicant’s unconditional waiver be acted upon and recommended discharge. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant was discharged on 1 November 1993. He served 6 years, 10 months, and 21 days on active duty. On 20 September 2011, the law commonly known as “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” (DADT), 10 USC 654, was repealed.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 (ORB) 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. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends approval to change the applicant’s character of service to honorable, the narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority” and SPD code to “JFF.” The approval is based on 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)”. Although the discharge was properly processed according to the applicable regulation, the applicant's discharge record indicates discharge was based solely on DADT and did not involve aggravating factors. The absence of aggravating factors is also indicated by the applicant's general service characterization. The DPSOR complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends the applicant’s RE code be changed to “1J.” DPSOA states the DADT guidance states 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 the applicant's record did not reveal any aggravating factors. The DPSOA complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 25 April 2014, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. In light of the repeal of DADT and the applicant's record of performance, it would be appropriate to change the characterization of service, RE code, narrative reason for separation and corresponding separation program designator(SPD) code. In a memorandum, dated 20 September 2011, the Under Secretary of Defense published guidance that Service Discharge Review Boards should normally grant requests to change the narrative reason for separation, corresponding SPD code, upgrade the service characterization, and change the RE code when both of 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. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 1 November 1993, he was honorably discharged with a narrative reason for separation of “Secretarial Authority,” a separation program designator code of “JFF,” and a reentry (RE) code of “lJ.” ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-04382 in Executive Session on 3 June 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 September 2013, w/atch. Exhibit B. DD Form 214 and Discharge Package. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 4 December 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 17 January 2014. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR dated 25 April 2014. 4 3