RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-01955

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be updated to Honorable. 


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reason for his discharge is no longer valid under current 
law and Armed Forces law or policy.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 Jul 51, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force.  

On 31 Aug 56, his commander requested an investigation 
predicated upon information received from other Non-Commissioned 
Officers (NCOs) living in his building.  

On 11 Sep 56, his commander notified him he was initiating a 
discharge action against him for being a Class II homosexual.

On 2 Oct 56, his commanding officer recommended he receive an 
undesirable discharge under the provisions of paragraph 14, AFR 
35-66, Discharge Processing Where Homosexual Acts or Tendencies 
are Involved (Class II).  The applicant submitted a written 
request for a Board hearing.

On 3 Oct 56, a Psychiatrist diagnosed him with passive-
aggressive reaction and indicated he is free from mental defect.

On 16 Nov 56, a board of officers convened and found him in 
violation of Class II, as outlined in paragraph 12, AFR 35-66, 
recommending he be discharged under other than honorable 
conditions and furnished an undesirable discharge certificate.  

On 21 Dec 56, the Staff Judge Advocate found the Discharge 
Review Board (DRB) proceedings legally sufficient indicating the 
findings and recommendations of the board are consistent with 
the available information and the policy contained in paragraph 
3, AFR 35-66.  

On 27 Dec 56, the approval authority approved the undesirable 
discharge under the provisions of AFR 35-66.  

On 3 Dec 57, the applicant requested the DRB review his 
discharge on the basis that one of the witnesses called to 
testify refused to do so on the grounds it would incriminate 
him.  The applicant was unable to cross-examine the witness, per 
the regulation under which he was discharged. 

On 27 Jan 58, the DRB upheld the applicant’s commanding 
officer’s recommendation for an undesirable discharge per AFR 
35-66.  

On 7 Jan 57, the applicant received an undesirable discharge 
characterized as under other than honorable.  He was credited 
with 5 years, 6 months and 7 days of active service.  He had 5 
years, 10 months and 20 days of prior service.  


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends approval of the applicant’s request to 
change the service characterization to “Honorable”, the 
narrative reason for separation changed to “Secretarial 
Authority”, and the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code 
change to “JFF”.  They also recommend the discharge regulation 
authority for separation be changed from AFR 35-66, Discharge 
Processing Where Homosexual Acts or Tendencies are Involved, to 
AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen”.

AFR 35-66 classifies Class II cases as those where a member, 
while serving in the active military service, has willfully 
engaged in one or more homosexual acts, or has proposed or 
attempted to perform the act of homosexuality.

On 10 Sep 11, the Under Secretary of Defense issued guidance 
pertaining to correction of military records requests resulting 
from the repeal of Title 10, § 654, commonly known as “Don’t Ask, 
Don’t Tell (DADT).”  Effective 20 Sept 11, Service DRBs should 
normally grant requests to change the narrative reason for a 
discharge (the change should be “Secretarial Authority” (SPD 
code JFF), requests to re-characterize the discharge to 
honorable, and/or requests to change the reentry (RE) code to an 
immediately-eligible-to-reenter category (the new RE code should 
be 1J)) when both of the following conditions are met:  (1) the 
original discharge was based solely upon 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.  Although 
each request must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, the 
award of an honorable or general discharge should normally be 
considered to indicate the absence of aggravating factors.

The applicant’s discharge was properly processed according to 
the applicable regulation and his discharge record indicates it 
was based solely on DADT.  There was no evidence of additional 
misconduct or aggravating factors in his record.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA concurs with the DPSOR advisory to change the 
applicant’s service characterization to “Honorable”, the 
narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority”, and 
the separation code to “JFF.”  

The applicant was discharged pursuant to AFR 35-66, paragraph 
12, for Class II homosexual conduct.  The discharge was after a 
full hearing in which the applicant participated and had the 
benefit of counsel.  The hearing and follow-on processing appear 
to have been conducted in accordance with the law and 
appropriate guidance in effect at the time.  The discharge 
though, was based solely upon a policy similar to DADT.  The 
hearing and the record did not involve misconduct or other 
reasons for discharge, and contained no evidence of aggravating 
factors.  

Since the discharge was based solely on a DADT-like policy with 
no aggravating factors, the Under Secretary of Defense guidance 
is to change the characterization of service, the narrative 
reason for separation and the separation code.

The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSOA recommends approval of the applicant’s request.  JA 
recommends to DPSOA to change the RE code to “1J” consistent 
with the intent of the guidance issued by the Under Secretary of 
Defense to provide equitable and complete relief to the 
applicant.  However, when the applicant separated in 1957, the 
equivalent of RE code “1J” was “1 – Eligible”; there were no two 
digit RE codes at the time.  DPSOA recommends the Board direct 
the applicant’s RE code be changed to “1”.  

On 10 Sep 2011, the Undersecretary of Defense issued guidance to 
repeal DADT.  The guidance stated requests to change the RE code 
to “1J” should be granted for member’s separated under DADT 
unless there was misconduct present.  However, when the 
applicant separated in 1957, the equivalent of RE code “1J” was 
“1 – Eligible”; there was no two digit RE codes at the time.  A 
thorough search of the applicant’s records did not reveal any 
evidence of misconduct.  
 
The complete 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 20 Oct 14 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit F).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.


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 error or injustice warranting 
relief.  The applicant is requesting his discharge be upgraded 
to honorable based on the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell 
(DADT).  No evidence has been presented which would lead us to 
believe his discharge was improper or contrary to the directive 
under which it was affected at the time of his separation.  
However, in light of the repeal of DADT and the applicant’s 
record of performance, it would be appropriate to upgrade his 
discharge to honorable.  In a memorandum, dated 20 Sep 11, the 
Under Secretary of Defense published guidance that Service 
Discharge Review Boards should normally grant requests to re-
characterize the discharge to honorable if 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 the applicant’s record be corrected as indicated 
below.	


THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was 
honorably discharged, issued a narrative reason for separation 
of “Secretarial Authority,” Separation Program Designator (SPD) 
code of “JFF,” Reentry (RE) Code of “1 – Eligible” and furnished 
an Honorable Discharge certificate.

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-01955 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 May 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 18 Jun 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 12 Aug 14.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 19 Sep 14.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Oct 14.