| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade | Analyst |
| Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Elzey J. Arledge | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions discharge (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that this discharge should be upgraded because he had completed most of his active duty time and that this was his only act of misconduct.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 July 1983 for a period of 3 years and the U.S. Army Station of Choice Enlistment Option – Fort Ord, California. Following completion of all military training, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 54E, Nuclear Biological Chemical Specialist and assigned to Fort Ord.
On 6 March 1985, the applicant departed Fort Ord enroute to the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). On 20 April 1985, the applicant was assigned to the 43rd Chemical Detachment, Berlin Brigade, FRG.
On 3 July 1985, the Berlin Criminal Investigation Division (CID) office initiated an investigation when it was brought to their attention by the company commander that the applicant and another soldier were observed in what might have been homosexual acts. CID submitted a final Report of Investigation (ROI) which disclosed that the applicant performed an act of fellatio on another soldier. The ROI was coordinated with the Staff Judge Advocate’s (SJA) Office, Berlin, Germany. The SJA stated that there was probable cause to believe that both soldiers had committed sodomy.
On 3 September 1985, the applicant was notified that his company commander was initiating action to separate him from the Army under the provisions of chapter 15, paragraph 15-3a, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 for homosexual activities. His company commander advised him that a UOTHC discharge was the lowest characterization of service he could receive.
On 10 September 1985, after being advised by counsel of the contemplated separation action under the provisions of chapter 15, AR 635-200, the applicant requested consideration of his case by a board of officers; personal appearance before that board; and declined to submit a statement in his own behalf. On 24 September 1985, after again consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to a board of officers.
On 16 October 1985, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation with a UOTHC discharge. Accordingly, on 25 October 1985, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 2 years, 2 months, and 29 days of creditable military service.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 15 of that regulation states that homosexuality is incompatible with military service and provides, in pertinent part, for the separation of members who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a tendency to engage in homosexual conduct.
There is no evidence of record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.
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 this requirement.
2. There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the infraction of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offense. The Board noted that the applicant engaged in a homosexual act while a member of the military service and discharge proceedings were properly initiated under the provisions of chapter 15, AR 635-200. The applicant, as a soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army’s policies on homosexuality and or homosexual activity. By engaging in a homosexual act, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a general or fully honorable discharge. The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
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
__DSJ __ __DPH__ ___EJA __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058100 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011106 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19851025 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, c15 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Homosexuality |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Director |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.9201 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083634C070212
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. PURPOSE : To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to...
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080140C070215
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: Although the applicant’s former battalion commander elected not to take action based on the findings and conclusions of the Article 32 investigation he had initiated, this factor alone does not provide a sufficient evidentiary basis to support removing the applicant’s name from the title block of the CID...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9609779C070209
Following a legal review of the investigation, sufficient probable cause existed to title the applicant for the offense of indecent acts. 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. BOARD VOTE: GRANT GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION Karl F. Schneider Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015601
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, U.S. 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 "Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) or prior policies. The evidence of record confirms...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011370
She acknowledged her rights and willingly agreed to discuss the offense under investigation with a Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigator. On 26 June 1985, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 15 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of homosexuality with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) memorandum, dated 20 September 2011, Subject: Correction of Military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070494C070402
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) expunge his name from the title (subject) block of Criminal Investigation Division (CID) Report of Investigation (ROI) #00-CID016-58830-5G2 and direct that the record be removed from the Defense Investigative Index (sic). On 28 March 2001, the applicant, his attorney, and members of his chain of command met with the Commander of the 22nd Military Police Battalion and the Fort Lewis CID Special Agent in Charge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010481C070208
The separation authority approved the separation and directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 15 for homosexuality with issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. He completed 2 years and 11 months total active military service with no days of lost time. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration in 1993, when the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy came into effect;...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081670C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS : That his discharge be upgraded. These soldiers stated that they had seen and/or participated in homosexual acts with the applicant.