RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02722
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
On the day in question he was drunk. He met two people in the
orderly room and was taken to a vacant bed. Afterwards, the Air
Police appeared and charged him with homosexual behavior.
He has lived stressfully with this discharge over 40 years. His
family has no knowledge of his situation and he wants to keep it
that way. A member of the American Legion advised him that he
could have his discharge case reviewed and changed. He would
like the Board to consider changing his discharge to give him a
peace of mind. At no time was he a homosexual. He would like to
rid himself of this nightmare.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his
DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer
or Discharge; a letter from the Veterans Administration.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 9 March 1965, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force
for a period of four years.
On 24 June 1968, the applicant was notified by his squadron
commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air
Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for
Unsuitability, Misconduct, Personal Abuse of Drugs; Resignation
or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service; and
Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program, for unfitness.
Specifically, on 19 March 1968, the applicant committed an act of
sexual perversion. The commander recommended the applicant
receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.
On 3 July 1968, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the
discharge notification. After consulting with legal counsel, he
waived his rights to an administrative discharge board hearing.
The base legal office found the case file legally sufficient to
support a general discharge and the discharge authority approved
the separation. On 24 Jan 69, the applicant was discharged in
the grade of sergeant, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, with
service characterized as general (under honorable conditions).
He completed 3 years and 5 months of total active service.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant did not
submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that
occurred in the discharge process. He provides no facts, which
warrant a change to his reason for separation or service
characterization. Based on the documentation in the applicants
master personnel records, the discharge and characterization of
service were consistent with the procedural and substantive
requirements of the discharge manual and were within the
discretion of the discharge authority.
In regards to the applicants contention that he was not provided
counseling, DPSOS states his military records clearly indicates
he was counseled on numerous occasions regarding his conduct and
was afforded an opportunity to meet Air Force standards prior to
his discharge.
The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant states he was not counseled and the only advice he
received was not to challenge the allegation and to go quietly.
He never committed an act of sexual perversion.
The applicants complete response is 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 an error or injustice. We took
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the
merits of the case, to include his response to the Air Force
evaluation; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has
not been the victim of an error or injustice. We considered
upgrading his discharge on the basis of clemency; however, based
on his overall record of service and no documentation related to
his post-service activities and accomplishments, we are not
persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of his
discharge on the basis of clemency is warranted.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINED 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-2010-02722 in Executive Session on 21 April 2011, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Jul 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 13 Dec 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jan 11
Exhibit E. Applicant's Response, undated.
Panel Chair
The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In the applicant’s response to the additional Air Force evaluation, she posed several questions that arose from her review of the evaluation. We considered the applicant’s request for an upgrade of her discharge to honorable and her request to receive service-related disability; however, we are not persuaded by the...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant-'s request and provided an advisory opinion T O the Board rezommending the application be deniea (Exhibit 1L. The applicant is requesting that his discharge be upgraded to-honorable Basis for Request. He hrther admitted that since Apr 76 he committed consensual homosexual acts with three individuals The board found applicant elisible for discharge and recommended his separation with a discharge under other than honorable conditions The...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2011-05022
The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 26 Jul 2012, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. Although the applicant requests his discharge be upgraded to general, based on the repeal of DADT, the Department of Defense issued policy guidance that Service Discharge Review Boards should normally grant...
She has been married to an active duty Air Force member for 23 years and supported his entire career (Exhibit A). The board recommended that the applicant be discharged because of unfitness with a general discharge. The records indicated that the applicant’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00533
She has been married to an active duty Air Force member for 23 years and supported his entire career (Exhibit A). The board recommended that the applicant be discharged because of unfitness with a general discharge. The records indicated that the applicant’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01824
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01824 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. Although each request must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, the award of an honorable or general discharge should normally be considered to indicate the absence of aggravating factors. The discharge was properly processed according...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00249
Additionally, the RE code of 2C is driven by the involuntary discharge with honorable character of service and is not associated with the applicants narrative reason for separation of Homosexual Admission. The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial, stating, in part, the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. The applicant's discharge from the Air Force for...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02142
On 7 Mar 79, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the Record of Administrative Discharge Board proceedings and found it legally sufficient to support discharge with a recommendation to the 42 CSG/CC that the applicant be discharged for misconduct, with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 21 Dec 81, the applicant was notified that his application for review of discharge and military records was forwarded to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) of the Secretary...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04266
DPSOS states the applicant has not filed a timely petition; it has been 29 years since his discharge from the Air Force. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 February 2012.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00091
Applicant waived his right to a board hearing contingent upon him receiving a general discharge certificate. After careful consideration of the available evidence, the discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force Manual in effect at the time and we find no evidence to indicate the applicant was denied any rights to which entitled, or that his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate. Contrary to the applicant’s belief, his record of service was considered when...