APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that any references to her having committed the offense of sodomy be removed from her military records.
APPLICANT STATES: That she learned that she had been charged with sodomy after being refused a handgun permit in conjunction with a correctional officer position for which she applied . She adds that the offense never happened and she has never had anal sex in her life.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She was born on 23 September 1968 and enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years on 9 May 1989. Following the completion of all required military training, she was assigned to an Engineer unit in the Republic of Korea, with duty as a truck driver.
While in Korea, the applicant entered into a homosexual relationship with her female roommate. During this relationship, the applicant received and performed cunnilingus with her female roommate in their barracks room and in hotels near their compound.
The applicant departed Korea on 24 September 1990 enroute to Fort Carson, Colorado. At Fort Carson, she maintained her homosexual relationship with her former roommate via letters and telephone calls. At one point, her former roommate, who had been discharged, came to Fort Carson where she and the applicant engaged in oral sex.
While at Fort Carson, the applicant informed her first sergeant that she was a homosexual. The first sergeant notified Army criminal investigators (CID) who opened a case. During the CID investigation, the applicant made a sworn statement that she was homosexual and had performed oral sex with another female soldier in her barracks room in Korea and at Fort Carson.
On 25 March 1991, the applicants commander notified her that action was being initiated to separate her under the provisions of chapter 15, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 for homosexuality. The applicant was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to her. After consulting with legal counsel, she waived her rights and requested separation.
The applicants separation was approved on 10 April 1991. On 5 May 1991, she was separated with an honorable discharge under the provisions of chapter 15, AR 635-200. The narrative reason for separation was listed as Engaged, attempted to engage, or solicited another to engage in homosexual acts. She had 1 year, 11 months, and 29 days of creditable active service and no lost time.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement
2. The applicant admitted to performing homosexual acts with another female, including oral sex. The Manual for Courts-Martial states that anyone . . . who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex . . . is guilty of sodomy. It further defines unnatural carnal copulation as taking . . . into that persons mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or animal . . . .
3. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052760C070420
The applicant requests, through counsel, that his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) be corrected to show he was not discharged but rather remained on active duty; that he was afforded early retirement with corresponding back pay and allowances as if he had not been discharged in 1998; that his discharge cite retirement as the narrative reason and contain no stigmatizing entry as to separation code, reentry code or in any other respect; that he receive such decorations as he would have...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071052C070402
CID noted that the "informant's" second, 1 August 1997, complaint to the White House Liaison Office (which alleged the "other man" engaged in homosexual acts with the applicant and implied that the applicant unlawfully used Government funds to move the "other man" to Korea) was the basis for CID's investigation. The advisory opinion concluded by stating that the applicant's request contained no new evidence which would convince a reasonable person to believe he should be removed from the...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2007-135
The applicant further argued that SN A’s CGIS statement was not credible because it contained inconsistencies with her subsequent statement to the PIO or with the statements of the other witnesses. She stated that she saw 3. SN B who was allegedly involved in homosexual acts with the applicant stated to CGIS that SN A was attracted to the applicant, but the applicant was not interested.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508897C070209
She continued by stating that during her second and third date with the applicant they had sexual intercourse and she was not forced in any way. She was asked if she told the authorities if she had intercourse with both the applicant and the PFC. On 16 November 1955 the accuser and a male interpreter returned to the captain and told him that the applicant had forced her to have intercourse with him and during the act he had one of his friends take pictures.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083962C070212
There is no evidence in the available records to indicate that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded: ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008084C071029
The applicant’s discharge packet is not available. The applicant’s ADRB packet shows the applicant’s commander notified the applicant on 8 January 2001 of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, by reason of misconduct – commission of a serious offense, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511954C070209
Additionally, letters from his brothers indicate that they had told him about taking some pictures, but he had waited too long (to have film developed), and had no way of knowing which film was his (which were non-criminal) and which were his brothers. The applicant did not appeal the bar to reenlistment. As its name indicates, nonjudicial punishment is different from a trial by court-martial.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05158-00
opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 28 February 2001, a copy of which is attached. We recommend that the requested relief be denied. grade from sergeant to corporal, forfeiture of $780.00 pay per Petitioner was awarded reduction in Subj: BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) APPLICATION month for 2 months, and 60 days restriction.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015106
Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) memorandum, dated 20 September 2011, subject: Correction of Military Records Following Repeal of Section 654 of Title 10, United States Code, provides policy guidance for Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to follow when taking action on applications from former service members discharged under DADT or prior policies. The evidence of record confirms the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005179
The applicant's counsel contends the Army reported a CID titling decision for an allegation of rape and forcible sodomy which lacked probable cause. The available evidence shows the applicant requested the CID correct his record. The evidence of record confirms the results of a CID investigation provided a sufficient legal basis for the applicant to be titled for forced sodomy.