RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-04775
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His character of service be changed from under other than 
honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The characterization of his discharge is unjust due to the 
current military regulations which allow military service for 
homosexuals.

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, and his discharge documents.

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

_________________ ______________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate that he 
entered the Regular Air Force on 3 Jan 84.

According to documentation provided by the applicant, on 26 Jun 
86, he was notified by his commander that he was recommending 
his discharge from the Air Force for homosexuality.  The basis 
for the proposed action was the applicant demonstrated in his 
statements, a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct and on 
two separate occasions, he engaged in homosexual acts. 

On 26 Jun 86, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge notification and, after consulting with counsel, on 
28 Jun 86, waived his right to submit additional matters on his 
behalf.  

The applicant’s commander informed the applicant that if 
evidence substantiated the alleged activities occurred with a 
subordinate that violated a customary superior/subordinate 
relationship, or any of the factors listed in Air Force 
Regulation (AFR) 36-2, Administrative Discharge Procedures, 
paragraph 3-2d, he could be issued an UOTHC.

AFR 36-2, paragraph 3-2d(3) states, “A characterization of under 
other than honorable conditions discharge may be issued if there 
is a finding that an officer attempted, solicited, or committed 
a homosexual act with a subordinate in circumstances that 
violate customary military superior/subordinate relationship.”

On 19 May 87, the applicant received an UOTHC discharge with a 
narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct, Moral or 
Professional Dereliction: Homosexual Acts.”  He was credited 
with 3 years, 4 months, and 17 days of total active service.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends changing the applicant’s narrative reason 
for separation to reflect “Secretarial Authority.”  On 20 Sept 
11, the law commonly known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), 
Title 10 U.S.C. § 654 was repealed.  The Department of Defense 
subsequently issued guidance indicating that Service Discharge 
Review Boards should normally grant requests to change the 
narrative reason for a discharge, requests to re-characterize 
the discharge to honorable, and/or requests to change the 
reentry code when both of the following conditions were 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.

DPSOR recommends his character of service remain unchanged 
(UOTHC) due to the applicant's failure to meet the standard of 
the absence of additional aggravating factors.  The discharge 
was properly processed and the applicant’s record indicates 
other aggravating factors of misconduct perpetrated by the 
applicant.  These additional aggravating factors are indicated 
by the applicant’s UOTHC service characterization given by the 
discharge authority.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA concurs with DPSOR that the applicant’s narrative reason 
for separation should be changed to “Secretarial Authority.” JA 
also concurs that the character of service should remain 
unchanged due to aggravating factors and the applicant’s case 
was not based solely on DADT.  While the homosexual acts 
committed by the applicant were consensual on the part of both 
members, the other person involved in this relationship was an 
enlisted subordinate of the applicant.  This fraternization 
violated a customary superior/subordinate relationship, which, 
under the applicable discharge regulation, authorized a UOTHC 
discharge.  The conduct of the applicant, in forming an 
intimate/sexual relationship with a subordinate enlisted member, 
clearly constitutes an aggravating factor that should preclude a 
change in characterization to an honorable or general discharge.

Historically, fraternization has been defined as it is today in 
AFI 36-2909, Professional and Unprofessional Relationships, 
paragraph 2.2.1, “Fraternization, as defined by the Manual for 
Courts-Martial, is a personal relationship between an officer 
and an enlisted member that violates the customary bounds of 
acceptable behavior in the Air Force and prejudices good order 
and discipline, discredits the armed services, or operates to 
the personal disgrace or dishonor of the officer involved.  The 
custom recognizes that officers will not form personal 
relationships with enlisted members on terms of military 
equality, whether on or off-duty.  Although the custom 
originated in an all-male military, it is gender neutral.  
Fraternization can occur between males, between females and 
between males and females.  

The complete AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

His commander did not recommend he be discharged with an UOTHC 
discharge, indicating that his notification letter states that a 
general discharge is the worst possible discharge that may be 
approved and that a UOTHC “may” be issued.  Additionally, he did 
not submit his resignation because his command authority 
predicated his discharge characterization on his willingness to 
identify other service members who were homosexual or who he 
suspected may have been homosexual.  He did not then and would 
not now; make accusations against other service members based 
solely on being rewarded a higher discharge characterization.  
Furthermore, he was not aware the individuals that he is alleged 
to have been homosexually involved with were in the Air Force 
and neither did they know he was in the Air Force.  The activity 
between all parties does not rise to the level of 
fraternization.  Lastly, his record does not support nor does 
his DD Form 214 indicate, aggravating 
circumstances/fraternization.  His wish is to have the U.S. flag 
draped over his casket upon his death.

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

________________________________________________________________

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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant 
changing the applicant’s character of service to honorable.  In 
this respect, we note the Under Secretary of Defense published a 
memorandum, dated 20 Sep 11, stating Service Discharge Review 
Boards should normally grant requests to change the narrative 
reason for discharge, requests to re-characterize the discharge 
to honorable, and/or requests to change the reentry code when 
both of the following conditions are met: (1) the original 
discharge was based solely on Don't Ask, Don't Tell (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.  
However, as pointed out by AFPC/JA, the conduct of the applicant 
in forming an intimate/sexual relationship with a subordinate 
enlisted member clearly constitutes an aggravating factor.   
Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the 
Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt 
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant 
has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the absence 
of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend 
granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has 
been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice to 
warrant changing the applicant’s narrative reason for 
separation.  In light of the repeal of DADT, we find it 
appropriate to change the applicant’s narrative reason for 
separation to Secretarial Authority, with the corresponding 
separation code of KFF.  Therefore, in the interest of justice, 
we recommend the applicant's record be corrected to the extent 
indicated below.

5.  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 the Board's understanding of the issues 
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 the APPLICANT be corrected to show that at the 
time of his 19 May 1987 discharge, the narrative reason for his 
separation was “Secretarial Authority,” with a Separation Code 
of “KFF.”

________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-04775 in Executive Session on 28 Aug 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

		                      , Panel Chair
		                 , Member
		                  , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-04775 was considered:

	 Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Oct 13, w/atchs.
	 Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
	 Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 31 Dec 13, w/atch.
	 Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 13 Jan 14.
	 Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jan 14.