RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03730

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) character of 
service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  When he signed the discharge action, statement in 1968 he 
was told it would be a general discharge and that is what he 
thought he had.  At the time of his discharge, he was going 
through a nasty divorce.  Because of this, he was suffering from 
mental and physical exhaustion.  He was under distress because 
of an investigation as a result of his wife’s complaint that he 
was a transvestite.  He remembers that he signed some papers but 
they were not completely filled out when he signed them.  He 
does not remember what he signed.  His wife was very angry and 
threatened to make his life a real hell.  He would have agreed 
to anything to get away.  

2.   Had he known about the UOTHC character of service he would 
have tried to correct it.  He believes his discharge papers were 
sent to his parents’ home.  He pleads guilty to being young and 
stupid.  He was naïve, immature and made poor choices.  

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
personal statement, a written “Statement Of Witness” from his 
ex-spouse, his Discharge Action Statement and AF Form 548, 
Action Required on the Probation and Rehabilitation (P&R) 
Program When an Airman is Being Considered for Discharge Under 
Chapter 2, Sections A, B, or C, AFM 39-12.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 
28 June 1965.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of 
Airman First Class, E-3.  On 30 October 1968, he was notified by 
his commander that he was recommending him for discharge from 
the Air Force, for unfitness, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, 
Chapter 2; section B, paragraph 2-15b.  The reasons for the 
proposed action were:

	a.  An investigation was requested by the base commander 
based on information that the applicant told his wife that he 
was a transvestite and had dressed in women’s clothing on 
several occasions.  

	b.  A sworn statement dated 14 August 1968, by his wife, 
indicates that about June 1966, at location of assignment, he 
performed a transvestite act by dressing in female undergarments 
and negligee; that about November or December 1966, and again 
about April 1968, at location of assignment, he performed 
transvestite acts by dressing in female undergarments; and that 
about June 1966, he told his wife that he was a transvestite.  

	c.  On 14 August 1968, at base of assignment, he orally 
admitted that he had obtained membership in an unspecified 
number of transvestite clubs, some of which he joined in the 
name of his wife.  

	d.  On 14 August 1968, a search of his personal effects 
revealed the following: fifteen photographs of men dressed in 
female undergarments, six of which appeared to be the applicant; 
twelve photograph clippings showing two men dressed as females; 
numerous documents, including three books, one pamphlet, 
advertisements, and twelve letters containing material of a 
transvestite nature; and six items of female undergarments.  

	e.  On 15 August 1968, in a sworn statement, he admitted 
that since January 1968, he had written from twenty-five to 
forty letters to individuals and clubs concerning publications 
dealing with transvestitism and that in several of these letters 
he wrote as if he was a woman; and that in May or June 1968, at 
a party in private residence, he dressed in female 
undergarments.  

The applicant’s commander recommended that he be furnished an 
Undesirable Discharge Certificate; however, the final decision 
in his case and the type of discharge certificate to be awarded 
rested with the discharge authority.  

2.  On 30 October 1968, the applicant acknowledged receipt of 
the notification of discharge and was advised of his right to 
present his case before an administrative discharge board, 
consult counsel, and submit statements in his own behalf.  He 
waived his right to present his case before an administrative 
discharge board and to provide a statement in his own behalf; 
however, he consulted counsel.  

3.  Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient, the 
discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed the 
applicant be discharged and furnished an Undesirable Discharge 
Certificate.  The characterization of service was not specified 
in the discharge authority’s letter.  The applicant was 
discharged on 15 November 1968, and was credited with completing 
3 years, 4 months and 18 days of active duty service.  

4.  On 24 March 2014, the applicant was given an opportunity to 
submit comments regarding his post service activities (Exhibit 
C).  

5.  In further support of his request, the applicant submits a 
personal statement, background report, letters of recommendation 
and appreciation, certificates of achievements, training 
certificates, marriage certificate, DVA certificate, college 
transcripts and military service documents.  He reiterates his 
previous contentions regarding the issues he faced prior to and 
during his discharge actions and expands on his post-service 
accomplishments.  He summarizes that he would like to believe 
that over the years, with his thirst for knowledge, he has 
become a better person than he was in his teens.  He knows of at 
least six people whom have benefited from his experience and 
knowledge.  The applicant’s complete response with attachments 
is at 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.  After a thorough review of the circumstances surrounding the 
applicant's discharge, the Board majority finds it significant 
that the applicant’s discharge was premised solely on cross-
dressing activities that took place on his personal time.  The 
record contains no evidence of any job-related misconduct, and 
the commander’s report explicitly states there was no record of 
demotion, punishment under Article 15, or record of conviction 
by Court Martial.  While it is true that the applicant’s most 
recent performance report gave him a rating of 3 on a scale of 
1-9, and that his record contains no favorable communications, 
citations, or awards, his discharge was not based on 
unsatisfactory job performance or misconduct, but on cross-
dressing activities which came to light only as a result of 
information provided by his wife and the resulting Office Of 
Special Investigations (OSI) investigation and search of his 
personal effects.  Under current guidance, discharges that took 
place in the past and were based solely on homosexual conduct 
are to be upgraded to Honorable.  While the applicant was not 
discharged for homosexual acts, discharge guidance, titled 
“Homosexuality, Chapter 14”, compiled of excerpts from AFM 39-
12, para. 2-103 (IMC 81-2, 12 March 1981), AFM 39-12, 
1 September 1966, AFR 35-66, 14 April 1959, AFR 35-66, 23 July 
1956, AFR 35-66, 31 May 1954, AFR 35-66, 12 January 1951, AFR 
35-66, 20 February 1950 and various sister-service regulations, 
is highly persuasive in our disposition of this matter.  It 
addresses discharges solely on the basis of homosexual 
tendencies, noting that such discharges have been held to 
violate constitutional rights including the right to free 
speech, free association, and personal privacy.  Federal courts 
have also held that a less than honorable discharge for conduct 
that does not result in deficiency of performance of military 
duty and does not have a direct impact on military service 
exceeds the military’s statutory authority and violates due 
process.  In summary, discharges for homosexual tendencies, 
without more, should also be upgraded to Honorable.  In our 
view, this reasoning applies equally to the applicant’s 
discharge for cross-dressing interests and activities.  The 
applicant’s acts of self-expression took place on personal time 
and there is no indication in the record that they adversely 
affected his performance of his military duties.  It also 
appears that the applicant has led a stable and productive life 
since his separation from the Air Force, and his background 
report indicates no adverse information over the past 30 years.  
Based on the rationale above, the majority finds it in the 
interests of both justice and clemency to upgrade the 
applicant’s characterization of service to “honorable.”  
Accordingly, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent 
indicated below.  

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 
15 November 1968, he 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 22 April 2014, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

			, Panel Chair
			, Member
			, Member


By a unanimous vote, the Board recommended upgrading the 
applicant’s character of service.  The majority recommended an 
upgrade to “honorable.”  Panel member voted to upgrade the 
character of service to “general, under honorable conditions,” 
and has submitted a minority report, which is attached at 
Exhibit E.  The following documentary evidence pertaining to 
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-03730 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 August 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s DD Form 214.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 24 March 2014.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, not dated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Minority Report, dated 2 June 2014