RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01991
            INDEX CODE:  110

            COUNSEL:  American Legion

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He  was  not  offered  counsel  or  other  defenses  to  disprove  the
allegations of homosexuality.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement,
character statements, a Report of Physical Examination of Enlisted Man
Prior to Discharge or Retirement form, and  a  copy  of  his  Physical
Examination and Induction form.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant's military personnel records were destroyed by fire in 1973.
 Therefore, the available  documentation  he  and  the  Department  of
Veterans Affairs (DVA) provided will be  used  in  this  statement  of
facts.

The applicant was inducted into the Army/Air Force on 6 Jan 44 at  the
age of 18½.  He entered active duty on 27 Jan 44.

On 19 Oct 44,  a  Proceedings  of  a  Disposition  Board  convened  to
investigate and report upon the applicant who was considered  to  have
undesirable habits or traits of character in accordance with  AR  615-
368.

On 16 Dec 44, a Physical Status Certificate, provided  by  the  Chief,
Neuropsychiatic Section, indicated the applicant  had  been  evaluated
and was found to be suffering from sexual psychopathy:   homosexualism
(sodomy, active and passive).  The Chief indicated that applicant  was
a true or confirmed homosexual, was not deemed reclaimable and so  far
as is known, his misconduct was not aggravated by independent offenses
and that this condition existed prior to service.

On 22 Dec 44, the commanding  officer  recommended  the  applicant  be
discharged from the Army of the United States under the provisions  of
Army  Regulation  (AR)  615-368.   The   following   information   was
submitted:  Applicant was a true or confirmed homosexual and found  to
be suffering from sexual psychopathy:  homosexualism  (sodomy,  active
and passive), and, it was the commanding officer’s opinion  that  this
unsuitability existed prior to  enlistment.   The  commanding  officer
indicated that the applicant  was  counseled  in  private  as  to  his
responsibilities as a soldier; he was instructed by the first sergeant
as to why and how to be a good soldier; that every effort was made  to
develop the applicant to the extent where he may be expected to absorb
military  training  and  become  a  satisfactory  soldier;  that   the
applicant was unable to perform a satisfactory day’s work.

On 2 Jan 45, the applicant indicated that he read the  notice  of  the
meeting of the Board of Officers for the purpose of hearing his  case.
He indicated that he did not desire to be represented at  the  hearing
by counsel and at that time, he did not desire to have  any  witnesses
called in his behalf; however, he  reserved  the  right  to  call  any
witnesses if, between 2 Jan 45 and the hour and date of  the  hearing,
circumstances developed whereby this will be necessary.

On 3 Jan 45, the Report  of  Proceedings  of  the  Board  of  Officers
findings were that the applicant gave evidence of traits of  character
other  than  those  indicating  discharge  for  physical   or   mental
conditions as provided for in Section II (he was  unfit  to  associate
with enlisted men).  The Board of Officers recommended that  applicant
be discharged from the service under  the  provisions  of  AR  615-368
(Traits of character) which rendered  his  retention  in  the  service
undesirable and that his discharge certificate bear  the  entry,  “Not
recommended for reenlistment, induction, or reinduction.”  The Board’s
recommendation was approved on 14 Jan 45.

On 28 Jan 45, the applicant was discharged from the Army/Air Force  in
the grade of private under the provisions of  AR  615-368  (Traits  of
Character) and received an undesirable  discharge.   He  was  credited
with 1 year and 23 days of active service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau  of  Investigation
(FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia,  provided  an  investigative  report
indicating that on the basis of data furnished, they  were  unable  to
locate an arrest record (see Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel  Management  Specialist,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed
this application and indicated that the case has been reviewed and the
discharge  was  consistent  with  the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation  and  was  within  the  sound
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   considered   and
appropriate action was  taken.   Based  on  information  contained  in
applicant’s application, information contained in the Discharge  Board
proceedings and applicant’s master personnel records, DPPRS  finds  no
new evidence to  indicate  his  discharge,  over  53  years  ago,  was
incorrect, that an injustice occurred to him, that he was not  offered
to be represented by counsel, or, that the discharge  did  not  comply
with the discharge directive in effect at the time of  his  discharge.
Accordingly, DPPRS recommends applicant’s request for  an  upgrade  of
his discharge be denied.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation  and  indicated  that  the
advisory opinion he received is incorrect.  There was no hearing  that
he was told of.  He was called into the day room one evening and  told
what happened.  The night they said it happened, he was  in  a  boxing
match which he won.  After the fight, he was tired and made it to  his
bunk and fell asleep inside the barracks.  There were a lot of men  in
the barracks who he thought were talking about the fights  because  he
heard his name but it was about a sex act the men caught some guys in.
 He was awakened and asked his name.  In a few days, he was called  to
the day room and a few days later, he was kicked out of the Army.   In
the little town he was from, he had never heard of such  things.   His
thing was girls and he had a way with them.  He was tight with  school
girls way up until 12 at night and the older women at night.  It was a
group of them (himself included) that was put out  of  the  Army.   He
heard that if you went into the office and wrote  down  a  name,  that
person was discharged.  It was not him who  was  involved.   He  would
like to take a lie detector test so he can prove otherwise.

Applicant’s  complete  response,  with  attachment,  is  attached   at
Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________


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.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  We find no improperiety
in the characterization of applicant's  discharge.   It  appears  that
responsible officials applied appropriate standards in  effecting  the
separation, and we do not  find  persuasive  evidence  that  pertinent
regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded  all  the
rights to which entitled at  the  time  of  discharge.   We  conclude,
therefore,  that   the   discharge   proceedings   were   proper   and
characterization of the discharge  was  appropriate  to  the  existing
circumstances.

4.    Although the applicant has provided some  statements  concerning
post-service conduct, the Board finds these statements insufficient to
warrant an upgrade of his discharge on the basis of clemency.

5.    The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to give
the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a  personal
appearance, with or without counsel, would not have  materially  added
to that understanding.  Therefore, the request for a  hearing  is  not
favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 6 July 1999, under the provisions  of  Air  Force
Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Gary Appleton, Member
                  Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
                Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)




The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Jul 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  FBI Report, dated 15 Dec 98.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 Sep 98.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Oct 98.
     Exhibit F.  Letter fr counsel, dated 22 Oct 98, w/atch.



                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair