RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01773
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 6 April 1962 undesirable (under other than  honorable  conditions)
discharge be upgraded to honorable.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant offered no contentions in support of his appeal.

His request is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 August  1958  for  a
period of four years.  Prior to the events under review,  he  attained
the rank of airman second class (E-3).  The record contains two Airman
Performance Reports reflecting overall evaluations of “An  exceptional
airman of great value to the service.”

On 6 March 1962,  the  squadron  commander  recommended  applicant  be
separated from the service, under the provisions of AFR  35-66,  as  a
Class II homosexual, and that he be furnished an undesirable discharge
certificate.  The basis for the  proposed  action  was  an  Office  of
Special  Investigations  (OSI)  Report  of  Investigation   concerning
homosexual acts on the part of the  applicant.   On  30 January  1962,
applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification.  On that
same date, he stated that military counsel had been made available  to
him and that he was notified of his right to employ  civilian  counsel
if he so desired.  Applicant waived his right to a  hearing  before  a
board of officers and submitted a statement in his own behalf.

On 15 March 1962, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the file and found
sufficient evidence in the file to justify applicant’s discharge  from
the service as a Class II homosexual.  On 22 March 1962, the discharge
authority approved the recommendation  for  elimination  of  applicant
under the provisions of AFR 35-66, and directed he be discharged under
the provisions of  AFR  39-17  as  a  Class  II  homosexual,  with  an
undesirable discharge certificate.

On 6 April 1962, applicant was discharged under the provisions of  AFR
39-17, with  service  characterized  as  under  other  than  honorable
conditions.  He was credited with 3 years, 7 months, and  26  days  of
active Federal service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided a copy of an investigation report,
which is attached at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Separations Branch,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed  this  application  and
recommended denial, stating the applicant did not submit  evidence  or
identify any errors in the  discharge  processing  nor  provide  facts
which warrant an upgrade of the discharge he received  over  36  years
ago.

DPPRS stated that after reviewing the case  file,  the  discharge  was
consistent with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge regulation and was within the discretion  of  the  discharge
authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative  due
process.   The  records  indicate  applicant’s  military  service  was
reviewed and appropriate action was taken.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
14 September 1998 for review and comment within 30 days.  As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

On 6 November 1998, the AFBCMR afforded the applicant  an  opportunity
to provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving  the
service (Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has  been  received
from the applicant.

___________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  We found no  evidence  that
responsible officials applied inappropriate standards in effecting the
applicant’s involuntary discharge,  that  pertinent  regulations  were
violated, or that the applicant was not afforded  all  the  rights  to
which entitled at the time of his discharge.  Nevertheless, noting the
applicant’s otherwise exceptional record of duty performance  and  the
absence of any other derogatory information in his record, we  believe
there  is  some  doubt  that  he  would   have   received   the   same
characterization of service if the current policies had been available
at the time of his separation.   We  therefore  find  that  a  general
discharge more accurately reflects  the  characterization  of  service
rendered by the applicant.  We  are  not  persuaded  by  the  evidence
provided that  further  relief  in  the  form  of  a  fully  honorable
discharge is warranted.  Therefore, we recommend that the  applicant’s
records 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 6 April  1962,  he
was discharged with service characterized as general (under  honorable
conditions).

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 14 January 1999, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
      Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member
      Ms. Ann L. Heidig, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Jul 98.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  FBI Identification Record.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Aug 98.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 14 Sep 98;
                 Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Nov 98.




                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair






AFBCMR 98-01773




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of
Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed
that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to [APPLICANT], be corrected to show that, on 6 April 1962, he
was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-14 (Convenience
of the Government).






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency





MEMORANDUM FOR   THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION
                   OF MILITARY RECORDS

FROM: SAF/MIB

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Case of [APPLICANT], AFBCMR Docket Number 98-01773

      I have carefully reviewed all the circumstances of this case and do
not agree that the recommendation made by the AFBCMR panel provides the
applicant full and fitting relief.

      The applicant had over three years and seven months of service with
exceptional performance ratings and recommendations for promotion ahead
of other airmen with similar service and experience.  Except for the
incident which led to his separation, there is no evidence of any
derogatory information in his record.  In addition, it appears that he
had been a law-abiding citizen since his discharge.  Furthermore, had he
been separated under today’s standards, he most likely would have
received an honorable discharge.

      Therefore, it is my decision that applicant’s discharge should be
upgraded to honorable and the narrative reason for separation changed to
Convenience of the Government.




                                        JOE G. LINBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency