RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01767 

 

 COUNSEL: 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His official records be corrected to reflect the following 
changes on his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active 
Duty: 

 

1. His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be 
upgraded to Honorable. 

 

2. His Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to 
“Secretarial Authority.” 

 

3. His Separation Program Designator (SPD) code be changed to 
“JFF” (Secretarial Authority). 

 

4. His Reentry (RE) Code be changed to “1J” (Eligible to 
reenlist but elected to separate). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was discharged on the basis of homosexual conduct, and his 
discharge did not involve any aggravating factors. Accordingly, 
his case meets the criteria necessary to merit an upgrade under 
the current policy. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant entered the Air Force on 3 Jul 72. 

 

On 12 May 75, the applicant’s commander issued him non-judicial 
punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ). The reason for this action was that on 
or about 6 May 75, the applicant violated a lawful general 
regulation by having in his possession an amphetamine. 

 


On 6 Jun 75, the applicant’s commander notified him he was 
recommending him for discharge based upon his alleged frequent 
participation in homosexual activity. The commander’s reasons 
for this action were: 

 

 a. A sworn statement from another Sergeant stating the 
applicant propositioned him to engage in homosexual activity. 

 

 b. An interview with an Special Agent of the Office of 
Special Investigation (OSI) in which the agent claimed the 
applicant made advances and suggestions to him about 
participating in homosexual activities. 

 

 c. Nineteen First Class letters addressed to the applicant 
from other male associates containing homosexual connotations. 

 

The applicant acknowledged receipt, waived his right to a 
hearing before an administrative discharge board, and submitted 
statements on his behalf. 

 

On 6 Jun 75, the applicant’s commander recommended him for 
discharge for frequent participation in homosexual activity. 

 

On 16 Jun 75, the case was found to be legally sufficient. The 
Staff Judge Advocate recommended a General discharge, stating 
“While his job performance has been good in the past, it is 
clouded by his present misconduct and the recent Article 15 
action for illegal possession of amphetamine.” 

 

On 24 Jun 75, the discharge authority directed the applicant be 
furnished a General discharge and the he was so discharged on 
1 Jul 75. 

 

On 10 Sep 11, 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).” In a memorandum, dated 
20 Sep 11, the Under Secretary of Defense published guidance 
that Service Discharge Review Boards should normally grant 
requests to change the narrative reason for discharge (the 
change should be to “Secretarial Authority”), requests to re-
characterize the discharge to honorable, and/or request a change 
to the reentry code to an immediately-eligible-to-reenter 
category 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. Although 
each request must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, the 
award of an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge should normally be considered to indicate the absence 
of aggravating factors. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change his Reenlistment (RE) Code. The Under Secretary of 
Defense guidance repealing DADT states a request to change an RE 
Code to 1J should be granted for members separated under DADT or 
a similar policy unless there was misconduct present. The 
applicant’s record did reveal evidence of misconduct as he 
accepted NJP for drug possession. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
upgrade the characterization of this discharge, but recommends 
changing the narrative reason for the discharge to read 
“Secretarial Authority,” and the Separation Program Designator 
(SPD) code to “JFF.” Although the discharge was properly 
processed according to the applicable regulation, the 
applicant’s discharge record indicates the discharge was based 
solely on a policy similar to DADT. Therefore, a change in 
narrative reason for separation and SPD Code is appropriate. 
However, because the member’s record includes an Article 15 for 
drug possession, conduct which could have formed the basis for 
the noted character of service, the character of his service 
should not be upgraded to honorable. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/JA agrees with both DPSOA and DPSOS, and recommends 
changing the narrative reason for discharge and SPD code, but 
recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change the 
characterization of his service and RE Code. While the 
applicant was discharged based solely on a policy similar to 
DADT, his record included evidence of other misconduct. This 
misconduct was considered at the time of his discharge and the 
legal review associated with the action indicates the facts and 
circumstances surrounding the discharge and the Article 15 
warranted a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. As 
such, the applicant’s case, when it comes to the character of 
his service and RE code, does not meet the DoD guidance as his 
other misconduct is an aggravating factor. 

 

The complete AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Counsel argues that it would be unjust for the Board to deny him 
an upgrade to his discharge characterization purely on the basis 
of this single Article 15. The drug in question for which he 
received the Article 15 was LSD, but unbeknownst to him, the 
drug was stored on pieces of paper in such a way that, although 
he possessed the paper, he was unaware of their drug content 
until an accusation was made against him. He did not 


intentionally transgress military policy. Under the modern 
standard governing discharge characterizations within the Air 
Force, a service member merits a General discharge where “an 
airman’s service has been honest and faithful,” and 
“significantly negative aspects of the airman’s conduct or 
performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the airman’s 
military record.” The regulations further indicate that a 
service member’s characterization should usually be based on “a 
pattern of behavior rather than an isolated incident.” In 
addition, consideration should be given to “the frequency and 
seriousness of the disciplinary infractions” and the “total 
service in the current enlistment.” The applicant’s record 
overwhelmingly demonstrates his positive service. Although it 
cannot be disputed that the positive service was considered at 
the time of the applicant’s discharge, this by no means 
indicates that the assessment of his service would have been the 
same had the discharge authority operated under current military 
policy. Homosexual conduct would have been considered negative 
information at the time of the applicant’s discharge and, when 
considered in conjunction with the Article 15, may very well 
have given the appearance of significantly more negative 
information in the applicant’s record of service than would 
appear today, under modern policy. The General discharge and 
the RE Code of “2” did not accurately characterize the 
applicant’s quality of service at the time of his separation, 
because his single Article 15 does not outweigh the many aspect 
of his service. Had the applicant’s case been considered under 
the modern regulations, there is substantial doubt that he would 
have received the same discharge characterization as he 
currently bears. Further, under modern regulations, he could 
not have received an RE Code of “2” because he would not have 
involuntarily been discharged at all (Exhibit G). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was untimely 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 with respect 
to the applicant’s request to change his Narrative Reason for 
Separation and Separation Program Designator (SPD) code. We 
took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging 
the merits of the case, to include his response to the Air Force 
evaluations, and agree with the opinions and recommendations of 
AFPC/JA and AFPC/DPSOS and adopt their rationale as the basis 
for our conclusion that in view of the repeal of the law 
commonly known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT),” it would be in 
the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s narrative 
reason for separation and SPD code to reflect “Secretarial 
Authority” and “JFF,” respectively. As for the applicant’s 
remaining requests to upgrade his discharge to honorable and 
change his associated reenty (RE) code, a majority of the Board 
is convinced that it would also be in the interest of justice to 
recommend granting these aspects of his request. We note the 
comments of AFPC/JA and AFPC/DPSOA indicating the applicant’s 
misconduct, which resulted in his receipt of non-judicial 
punishment, constitutes an aggravating factor; however, as the 
sole basis for the discharge action was the applicant’s 
homosexual conduct, and his receipt of NJP did not form any part 
of the basis for the action, the majority believes justice would 
be served if the records were corrected to reflect the applicant 
was honorably discharged and issued an RE code of “3K.” 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to the APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 
1 Jul 75, he was honorably discharged, issued a narrative 
reason for separation of “Secretarial Authority,” Separation 
Program Designator (SPD) code of “JFF,” Reentry (RE) Code of 
“3K,” and furnished an Honorable Discharge certificate. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-01767 in Executive Session on 17 Jan 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

 


All members voted to correct the applicant’s narrative reason 
for separation and SPD code. By majority vote, the Board voted 
to correct the records to reflect the applicant was honorably 
discharged and issued an RE code of “3K.” XXXX voted to deny 
these aspects of the applicant's request and has submited a 
minority report, which is at Exhibit H. The following 
documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-
01767 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Apr 12, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 26 Jul 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 6 Aug 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 10 Sep 12. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Sep 12. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, Counsel, dated 10 Oct 12, w/atch. 

 Exhibit H. Minority Report, dated 4 Feb 13. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair