RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02280 

 

 COUNSEL: 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her character of service be changed from general to honorable. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

In a combined 13 page brief, the applicant and counsel present 
the following contentions: 

 

 a. In 1950 she came under investigation, along with a 
number of other girls in her squadron, on suspicion of 
homosexuality. Although she and her friends were followed 
constantly by investigators, she is not aware of any information 
the Air Force may have had which would have led investigators to 
begin such an investigation. 

 

 b. She never made any statements about her sexual 
orientation while in the armed forces. Nevertheless, she was 
discharged from the Air Force. This discharge took place as a 
result of the Air Force’s conclusion that she was homosexual. 

 

 c. She was ordered to be separated by reason of 
unsuitability, with a general discharge. No other information 
appears in her service record regarding the basis for her 
discharge. Clearly, then, the underlying basis of her discharge 
consisted of the allegation regarding her sexual orientation. 
Thus, she meets the requirement for discharge upgrade under the 
terms of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) Repeal Act of 2010. 

 

 d. Under the terms of the DADT Repeal Act, a veteran 
discharged under a prior regulation concerning sexual 
orientation and the military may merit an upgrade to his or her 
DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of 
Transfer or Discharge, if his or her discharge did not involve 
aggravating factors such as misconduct. There is no negative 
information in her service record regarding her conduct in the 
military, nor any detail regarding the basis of her discharge 
which might offset this presumption. Accordingly, nothing in 
her record can reasonably be considered aggravating factors for 
the purposes of preventing an upgrade of the characterization of 


her discharge. Therefore, she meets both criteria necessary for 
an upgrade and her discharge characterization should be changed 
to honorable as an equitable relief in the interest of justice. 

 

 e. Since her discharge, she has been an active member of 
her community. From 1950 through 1956, she was employed by a 
local power corporation. In 1966 she returned to college and 
completed her bachelor’s degree in 1967. She then taught at a 
local middle school until her retirement in 1984. Since her 
retirement she has been volunteering at her local hospital. 

 

 f. Although she learned about her discharge 
characterization since her separation, she only became aware of 
a possible injustice associated with this characterization upon 
the repeal of the DADT policy, which took place on 
20 September 2011. Therefore, while more than three years have 
passed since she discovered the basis for the general 
characterization of service; the application is filed in a 
timely manner. 

 

 g. In the alternative, if the Board considers her date of 
discovery to be that on which she first saw her general 
discharge characterization, it is the interest of justice for 
the Board to waive the three-year time limit pursuant to its 
powers under 32 C.F.R.,865.3(f)(1). 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her 
counsels’ brief, DD Form 214, documents extracted from her 
military personnel records, and documents pertaining to the 
Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

According to her DD Form 214, and documents extracted from her 
military personnel record, the applicant is a former member of 
the Regular Air Force who enlisted on 25 April 1949 and was 
progressively promoted to the grade of Private First Class with 
an effective date of pay grade of 13 July 1949. The applicant 
was released from active duty effective 13 November 1950 and was 
credited with 1 year, 6 months and 17 days of active duty 
service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/JA recommends approval. JA states that 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 she was accused, the regulations and the 
DD Form 214 indicate this was most likely a class III homosexual 
case. In this situation, if it were a class I case (the result 
of coercion or force) the applicant would have been subject to a 
court-martial. There is no evidence of a court-martial in this 
case. If it were a Class II case, she would have received 
either an undesirable discharge or a general court-martial. 
Here, the applicant received a general characterization, which 
is only allowed under AFR 35-66 if the individual is classified 
as a Class III homosexual. 

 

The Department of Defense (DoD) policy guidance for the repeal 
of section 654 of Title 10, United States Code addresses the 
correction of military records and sets forth supplemental 
policy guidance for the service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) 
or their Service Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR) 
to manage an expected large number of applications arising from 
the repeal of DADT. The DoD policy guidance provides that: 
consistent with what AFPC/JA understands is past service 
Discharge Review Board practice on changing standards, DADT’s 
repeal may be a relevant factor in evaluating an application 
(such as request to change the narrative reason for discharge, 
requests to re-characterize the discharge to honorable, and/or 
requests to change the reentry code to an immediate eligible to 
reenter category) but the issuance of a discharge under DADT or 
the taking of an action pursuant to DoD regulations related to a 
discharge under DADT should not by itself be considered to 
constitute an error or injustice that would invalidate an 
otherwise proper action taken pursuant to DADT and applicable 
DoD policy. Thus, remedies such as correcting a record to 
reflect continued service with no discharge, restoration to a 
previous grade or position, credit for time lost, or an increase 
from no separation pay to half or full separation pay or from 
half separation pay to full separation pay, would not normally 
be appropriate. 

 

Additionally, it provides that DRBs should normally grant 
requests to re-characterize discharges 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 
the enactment of DADT and (2) there were no aggravating factors 
in the record such as misconduct. Although this specific 
guidance seems to be directed only to the DRBs there is nothing 
precluding the BCMRs from adopting the above parameters in their 
review when exercising their recognized broader scope of 
authority and discretion. 

 

AFPC/JA is of the opinion that the applicant’s discharge 
warrants a re-characterization of service with a corresponding 
correction of the narrative reason for discharge; however, 
because it appears that the actions taken to effect the 
applicant’s separation from the Air Force were in accordance 


with the law and governing regulations of the time, they 
recommend any relief afforded to the applicant be limited to DoD 
policy guidance and DRBs reviewing parameters. 

 

The complete AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends approval. DPSOS states they find there is 
insufficient evidence contained within the applicant’s military 
record to confirm the circumstances and facts surrounding her 
discharge. Absent the documentation, there is a presumption of 
regularity in which the applicant was afforded due process and 
the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge regulation. 

 

Although the discharge was properly processed according to the 
applicable regulation, the applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates the 
discharge was based solely on DADT or a similar policy and did 
not involve aggravating factors. Pursuant to the recent DoD 
policy guidance and after applying the DRBs reviewing parameters 
they are of the opinion that the applicant’s request warrants a 
re-characterization of service and a change to the narrative 
description. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA states although not requested, their office addresses 
Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) codes involving separation under 
DADT or similar policy. DPSOA further states there was no RE 
code found on the applicant’s DD Form 214 or in her records. 
They do not know whether RE codes were supposed to be included 
on DD Form 214s at the time of the applicant’s separation in 
1950. 

 

DADT guidance states requests to change the RE code to 1J should 
be granted for members separated under DADT unless there was 
misconduct. However, the earliest guidance on RE codes they 
have is dated March 1954 and the equivalent of RE code 1J was 
“1”; there were no two digit RE codes at that time. 

 

They defer to the OPR for the DD Form 214 to determine if an RE 
code should be added to the applicant’s form. Based on 
available guidance, they believe the applicant’s RE code on her 
DD Form 214 should be listed as “1” if it is determined an RE 
code should have been listed. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 


Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 30 August 2012, for review and comment within 30 
days (Exhibit F). To date, this office has not received a 
response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

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

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an injustice. In light of the 
repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) and the applicant's 
record of performance, it would be appropriate to change the 
narrative reason to "Secretarial Authority." In a memorandum, 
dated 20 September 2011, 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") 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. With regard to the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation 
regarding the applicant’s RE code, since no RE code is reflected 
on the applicant’s DD Form 214 that was issued in conjunction 
with her 1950 discharge, no action is required. Therefore, we 
recommend the applicant's record 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 show that on 
13 November 1950, she was honorably discharged with a narrative 
reason for separation of “Secretarial Authority” and was 
furnished an Honorable Discharge certificate. 

 

The following members of the Board considered this application 
in Executive Session on 6 December 2012, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603: 


 

 , Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-02280 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 May 2012, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 30 July 2012. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 31 July 2012 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 27 August 2012 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 August 2012 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair