RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02117 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His first enlistment resulted in an honorable discharge. 

 

He enlisted a second time in order to serve his country during a 
time of war, and even received a Good Conduct Medal. He was 
discharged based on one incident and he never knew who accused 
him of homosexuality. He was so ashamed of being labeled a 
homosexual that he never gave his full story to anyone. 

 

The most current policy set forth by the Department of Defense 
(DoD) has changed so he is finally able to ask for an upgrade to 
his discharge. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the 
United States and NA Forms 13038, Certification of Military 
Service. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant joined the Air Force on 2 Mar 1948 and was 
honorably discharged on 6 Feb 1950. 

 

On 3 Jan 1951 he reenlisted in the Air Force. On 8 Jun 1954, he 
was discharged under the provisions of AFR 35-66, Discharge of 
Homosexuals, with an undesirable character of service. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, 
extracted from the applicant’s military records are contained in 
the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force 
at Exhibit B. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 


 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Although the record is scant, the available evidence indicates 
that the regulations in effect at that time were appropriately 
followed, and the actions taken were supported by the evidence. 
While the applicant's DD Form 214 does not indicate the 
homosexual classification of which he was accused, the 
regulations, his statement, and the DD Form 214 indicate this 
was most likely a Class II homosexual case. 

 

In his request for an upgrade in characterization, the applicant 
stated that at the time he was notified of the discharge, he was 
too embarrassed to give his side of the story. His DD Form 214 
reflects AFR 35-66 as the reason for discharge with an 
undesirable characterization. It is logical to assume that in 
1954, he was classified as a Class II homosexual, and that he 
signed the statement required by AFR 35-66, agreeing to accept 
the undesirable discharge for the good of the service. Class II 
homosexuals included cases where individuals willfully engaged 
in one or more acts of homosexuality. In Class II cases, 
individuals were given a choice: they could submit a signed 
statement where they agreed to accept an undesirable discharge 
for the good of the service in lieu of further action, or they 
could refuse to sign and they would then go before a Board. 
Based on the Board's decision, there were three possible 
results: they would be retained in the service, discharged with 
an honorable or general characterization, or discharged with an 
undesirable characterization. 

 

The existing evidence and record supports the conclusion that 
the actions taken by the Air Force over 60 years ago complied 
with the law, regulations, and policy in effect at that time. 
Notwithstanding the preceding statement, DoD policy guidance 
issued immediately after the repeal of 10 U.S.C. §654,justifies 
a reconsideration of those actions. Thus, while the records 
seem to support the conclusion that the actions taken by the Air 
Force complied with the law, regulations and applicable policy, 
pursuant to the recent DoD policy guidance and after applying 
the Discharge Review Board’s reviewing parameters, JA is of the 
opinion that the applicant's request warrants a re-
characterization of service and a change to the narrative 
description. Additionally, the previous discharge 
characterization, viewed in conjunction with the regulations in 
effect at that time, indicates a lack of any aggravating factors 
or other basis for discharge. 

 

The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA states although not requested, their office addresses 
Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) codes in cases involving 
separation under Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) or similar policy. 
On 10 Sep 2011, the Under Secretary of Defense issued guidance 
to repeal DADT. The guidance stated requests to change the RE 


code to 1J should be granted for members separated under DADT 
unless there was misconduct present. However, the guidance for 
RE codes dated Mar 1954 shows the equivalent of RE code 1J was 
"1", as there were no two digit RE codes at that time. If it is 
determined a RE code should have been reflected on his DD Form 
214, recommend the board direct his RE code to be reflected as 
“1.” 

 

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 30 Aug 2012, copies of the Air Force evaluations were 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 
30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office (Exhibit D). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an injustice. After a review of 
the applicant’s records, we have surmised he was discharged for 
homosexuality. Based on the presumption of regularity in the 
conduct of government affairs, and in the absence of evidence to 
the contrary, we must assume that the actions taken to effect 
the applicant’s discharge were proper and in accordance with 
applicable policy and statute in effect at that time. Based on 
the repeal of DADT, the Department of Defense issued policy 
guidance that Service Discharge Review Boards should normally 
grant requests to re-characterize the discharge to honorable, 
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. Based on our review 
of the evidence of record, the applicant’s discharge meets these 
requirements. Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected 
as indicated below. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) 


involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to reflect that on 
8 Jun 1954 he was honorably discharged under the provisions of 
AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.2, “Secretarial Authority” with a 
separation code of JFF and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code 
of “1.” 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered this application 
in Executive Session on 11 Dec 2012, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence pertaining to BC-2012-02117 was 
considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 May 2012, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 23 Jul 2012. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 28 Aug 2012. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Aug 2012. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair