RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00356
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable or general.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was court-martialed for a ”Life Style” choice  he  had  no  control
over.  As this is no longer a reason for court-martial, his  discharge
should be upgraded.

In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of his DD Form
293 and DD Form 214 (Exhibit A).

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular  Air  Force
on 1 Jun 61 in the grade of airman basic  (E-1)  for  a  period  of  4
years.

Pursuant  to  the  commander’s  request,  an  OSI  investigation   was
conducted concerning the applicant and allegations  of  homosexuality.
On 6 May 64, applicant was interviewed by an OSI agent.  A medical and
psychiatric evaluation was conducted on 8 Jun 64;  the  diagnosis  was
“sexual deviation, homosexuality, involving participation as a passive
partner; and, the recommendation was administrative separation.

On 9 Jun 64, applicant was notified  he  was  being  recommended   for
discharge by his squadron section  commander.   The  reason  for  this
discharge action was based upon information received  that  there  was
reason to believe the applicant fell within the category of a Class II
Homosexual.  On 10 Jun  64,  applicant  indicated  he  consulted  with
counsel and elected to have his case heard by a board of officers  and
that he would be represented by military counsel.   On  3  Aug  64,  a
Board of Officers convened for the purpose  of  investigating  alleged
homosexuality, Class II, in accordance with AFR 35-66 on the  part  of
the applicant  and  providing  a  recommendation  as  to  whether  the
applicant should be discharged or retained in the service.  The  Board
of Officers found the applicant to have homosexual  tendencies,  Class
II, that his ability to perform military service was  compromised  and
that “most unusual extenuating circumstances” did not exist.  In  view
of  the  findings,  the  board  recommended  that  the  applicant   be
discharged and furnished  an  undesirable  discharge.   The  discharge
authority  approved  the  board’s  recommendation  and  directed   the
applicant be discharged as recommended.  The report  of  officers  was
reviewed and found legally sufficient  to  support  the  findings  and
recommendations of the board.  The applicant received an  under  other
than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge on 30  Sep  64.   He
had completed a total of 3 years, 3  months  and  29  days  of  active
service at the time of discharge.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 1 Aug 99, that,  on  the  basis  of  data
furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest record.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the  applicant’s  case
and stated that 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 the applicant  was
provided full administrative due process.   The  law,  Title  10  USC,
clearly states the prohibition against homosexual conduct in the armed
forces, and a member of the armed forces shall be separated  from  the
armed forces if that member  has  engaged  in  homosexual  acts.   The
records indicate the applicant’s military  service  was  reviewed  and
appropriate action was taken.  DPPRS stated that the applicant did not
submit any new evidence  or  identify  any  errors  in  the  discharge
processing nor provide facts warranting an upgrade of  the  discharge.
Accordingly, DPPRS  recommended  the  applicant’s  request  be  denied
(Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that he  was
not informed of the serious nature of  the  charges  against  him  and
therefore waived his right to an attorney and was not informed that he
could change his mind at a later date and  request  an  attorney.   He
therefore feels his rights were infringed upon and undue advantage was
taken of his youth and ignorance and fear.

Pursuant to the Board’s request,  the  applicant  provided  additional
post-service documents in support of his request.  Subsequent  to  his
discharge, he has earned two college degrees.  He worked in the mental
health department at a local  hospital  for  5  years.   In  1995,  he
suffered  a  heart  attack.   He  is  currently  on  social   security
disability for his heart condition and is taking care of his  80  year
old mother.

Applicant’s complete response is appended at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

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 took notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however,  we  agree  with  the  opinion  and  recommendation  of   the
appropriate Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.  We noted the  documentation
the applicant provided regarding his post-service  activities.   While
we commend the applicant for his post-service accomplishments,  we  do
not find this limited evidence sufficient  to  warrant  upgrading  his
discharge based on clemency.  We therefore conclude that the discharge
proceedings were proper and  characterization  of  the  discharge  was
appropriate to the existing circumstances and find no compelling basis
to disturb the existing record.
_________________________________________________________________

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 27 September 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member
                  Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Feb 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Apr 99.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 24 May 99.
   Exhibit E.  Electronic correspondence from applicant, dated
                 10 Jun 99, and a letter from applicant, undated,
                 w/atchs.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Panel Chair





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

FROM: SAF/MI

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Case of APPLICANT

      After carefully reviewing all of the circumstances of this case, I
disagree with the AFBCMR panel that the applicant’s request to upgrade his
discharge to honorable should be denied.

      In arriving at my decision, I note that the applicant’s sexual
orientation seems to have been established in his adolescent years.  He had
several homosexual contacts prior to being inducted into the service at 18
years of age.  Once he was identified as a possible homosexual by the
military, he freely admitted his involvement in numerous acts in detail
prior and subsequent to his entry into the military.  The Chief,
Psychiatric Service at Offutt AFB, NE, diagnosed the applicant with “sexual
deviation, homosexuality, involving participation as a passive partner.”
Clearly, this is an individual that did not meet the standards for
induction into the military service.

      In summary, the applicant has lived with the stigma of an undesirable
discharge with all its negative aspects for over 35 years.  Nonetheless,
from the evidence before me, it appears that he has been a law-abiding
citizen.  In addition, since all of the incidents, subsequent to his
enlistment, involved homosexual conduct between consenting adults with no
aggravating factors, had the applicant been separated under today’s
standards, he most likely would have received an honorable discharge.

      In view of the foregoing, it is my decision that the applicant’s
records be corrected to show that he was honorably discharged as a matter
of clemency.










AFBCMR 99-00356




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 30 September 1964,  he
was  honorably  discharged   and   furnished   an   Honorable   Discharge
certificate.




                                JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                Director
                                Air Force Review Boards Agency