RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-04030
		COUNSEL:  NONE
	XXXXXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reason for separation “Unsuitability,” be changed.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He has never been a threat to national security.  His proclivity 
towards cross-dressing did not impair him from performing his 
duties.

The applicant believes the Board should find it in the interest 
of justice to consider his untimely application because factual 
information about cross-dressing did not exist at the time of 
his discharge.

In support of his request the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of his DD Forms 214, Armed Forces of the 
United States Report of Transfer or Discharge; information 
extracted from the internet and various other documents 
associated with his request.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 20 January 1958, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

On 13 September 1963, he was notified by his commander that he 
was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFR 39-16, Discharge for Unsuitability.  The 
reason for this action was that on 6 September 1963, he 
exhibited traits of a severe character and behavior disorder, 
specifically, sexual deviation, type transvestism and fetishism 
by appearing on the streets dressed in feminine attire.

On 13 and 16 September 1963, the applicant acknowledged receipt 
of the Discharge Notification, waived his right to appear before 
a board of officers and submitted a statement in his own 
behalf.

On 17 September 1963, the discharge authority directed he be 
discharged and furnished an honorable discharge certificate.
On 18 September 1963, the applicant was honorably discharged 
from the Air Force.  The authority and reason for discharge is 
AFR 39-16, SDN 469, which denotes “Unsuitability.”  He served a 
total of 5 years, 8 months and 29 days of active service.

According to AFHQ – 02077, Review of Discharge of Separation, on 
24 July 1964, the applicant was notified that the Air Force 
Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) concluded that the type of 
discharge he received was equitable and proper and that a waiver 
to permit reenlistment was disapproved.  The AFDRB referred his 
application to the AFBCMR for further consideration.

On 29 July 1964, the AFBCMR denied his request stating that he 
failed to establish a showing of probable error or injustice.


THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  In accordance with AFR 39-16, 
airmen were subject to discharge for unsuitability when one or 
more character and behavior disorders existed.  The commander 
clearly believed that the applicant's incident fell within the 
aforementioned conditions to warrant discharge.  AFR 39-16 also 
indicates that individuals separated under these conditions will 
be furnished with an honorable discharge.  The applicant's 
administrative discharge, narrative reason for discharge, and 
separation code were applied appropriately in this case.  The 
applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or 
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He 
provided no facts warranting a change to his separation code or 
narrative reason for separation.  Based on the documentation on 
file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include 
the applicant's characterization of service, separation code and 
narrative reason for separation were consistent with the 
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The reason that he allowed so much time to lapse before 
challenging his discharge is that at the time very little, if 
any, factual information existed that would shed light on the 
causes of gender variance.  He does not hold the military 
accountable as they were as woefully lacking factual resources 
concerning the subject as he was.

He submitted a number of documents, particularly from the 
American Psychiatric and Psychological Association updating and 
revising their classification on this grossly misunderstood 
arena of human behavior.  For a stigma to be revised and removed 
signifies that it was unduly and unjustly applied in the 
beginning.  This does not lessen the impact it has caused him 
and others in similar situations.  Based on what is now known 
about cross-dressing, he requests reconsideration of his reason 
for discharge.

In further support of his request, the applicant provides a 
personal statement, copies of the Diagnostic and Statistical 
Manual of Mental Disorders-Fifth Edition (DSM-V), numerous 
articles and other documents associated with his appeal.

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


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The Medical 
Consultant acknowledges that attitudes, customs, and policies 
regarding same sex relationships have evolved over time and, 
indeed, no longer precludes acceptance or continuation of active 
duty with this regard.  Surgically and hormonally-induced gender 
changes have become common among the American population as 
well.  However, with respect to military service, there remains 
an existing analogous policy that may address the applicant's 
circumstances; despite the arguments he has put forth regarding 
the embryonic origins of sexual differentiation.  Specifically, 
under AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, 
paragraph 5.11.9.5, Transsexualism or Gender Identity Disorder 
of Adolescence or Adulthood [GIDAANT] [and] non-transsexual type 
GIDAANT is disqualifying for continued military service.

While such behavior in private may not interfere with military 
service or normal intellectual functioning, it is apparent that 
the overt and open display was viewed as incompatible with 
military service.  Finally, the Medical Consultant finds the 
applicant's petition has not been timely submitted for an event 
occurring in 1963.  Nevertheless, in view of today's acceptance 
of this phenomenon in civilian life, the Board may consider 
changing the reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority if 
viewed as an unjust impediment to the applicant's social and 
occupational opportunities.

The complete Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit F .


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant clarifies some up the issues addressed by the BCMR 
Medical Consultant who appears to be addressing the subject of 
homosexuality and associated relationships.  This has nothing to 
do with cross-dressing.  He has been married for 55 years.  
Secondly “gender identity disorder” has been removed from the 
DSM-V.  Finally with regard to his untimely application, as he 
explained previously, in 1963 there was no internet nor had much 
research been conducted concerning gender variance; therefore he 
had no source on which to draw legitimate arguments.  He 
appreciates that the military maintains more stringent 
requirements regarding the conduct of its members.  Clinicians 
have pointed out that transgender behavior can be controlled by 
the individual who is encumbered with it, as opposed to 
alcoholism or drug addiction.  Had he been afforded an 
opportunity to demonstrate that he could control his proclivity 
to cross-dress he could have done so.  However, he was only 
given a choice of an immediate discharge or face an inquiry or 
court martial.

In further support of his request, the applicant provides 
additional internet documents relating to transgender issues and 
cross-dressing.

His complete submission with attachments, is at Exhibit H.


FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the 
available evidence of record, we find the application untimely.  
The applicant did not file within three years after the alleged 
error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, 
United States Code, Section 1552, Correction of Military Records 
and AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military 
Records.  The applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the 
delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises 
issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the 
merits.  Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of 
justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to file in a timely 
manner.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the 
interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.  It is the 
decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as 
untimely.

?

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-
2013-04030 in Executive Session on 9 September 2014, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

       , Panel Chair
       , Member
       , Member
      
The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 August 2013, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 31 December 2013.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 April 2014.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 18 April 2014, w/atchs.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 
                  3 July 2014.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 July 2014.
      Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, 11 August 2014, w/atchs.






FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974