| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III | Member | ||
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be credited with and paid for six years of service at the pay grade of E-6 and four years of service at the pay grade of E-7; and that he should be honorably discharged with 20 years of service.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he appeared before a board of field grade officers in August 1963. He states that this board of officers was appointed by the then commanding general (CG) of Fort Gordon, Georgia, to determine his `suitability for retention in the military service. He claims that the unanimous recommendation of this board of officers was that he be retained in military service, that he be promoted to E-6, and that he be provided a new assignment.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records were requested from the National Personnel Records Center; St. Louis, Missouri. However, they were not available and were not provided to the Board. There were sufficient documents provided in a reconstructed record that allowed the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.
On 30 August 1963, the applicant was separated with a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). At the time of his separation, he held the rank and pay grade of specialist five/E-5 (SP5/E-5), and he had completed a total of
10 years and 23 days of active military service.
The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing were not on file in the available documents reviewed by the Board. However, there was a properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214) on file that was authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his separation. This document confirms that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-89, by reason of homosexuality.
The available documents provide no indication that the applicant was ever recommended for or promoted to a pay grade above E-5 by the proper promotion authority while he was on active duty. Further, the available evidence does not include documents or information in regard to the applicant’s appearance before a board of officers appointed to determine his fitness for further service.
There is no indication that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15 year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-89, in effect at the time, provided for the separation of individuals for homosexual tendencies or acts. Class II (homosexual acts) provided for the issue of an undesirable discharge, while Class III (homosexual tendencies) provided for the issue of a GD or an honorable discharge under exceptional circumstances.
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. The Board notes the applicant’s contentions that he should be credited with and paid for six years of service at the pay grade of E-6 and four years of service at the pay grade of E-7; and that he should be honorably discharged with
20 years of service. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support granting this requested relief.
2. The available evidence is void of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing. However, it does include a properly constituted DD Form 214 that contains the authority and reason for his discharge. This separation document identifies the reason and characterization of the applicant’s discharge, and the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.
3. In addition, the available evidence contains no indication that the applicant was ever recommended for or promoted to a pay grade above E-5 by the proper promotion authority during his active duty tenure, and the applicant has failed to provide independent evidence to the contrary. Notwithstanding his assertion, the Board finds no evidence to show the applicant’s retention was recommended by a board of officers. The Board notes that even if this were true, the separation authority would have still retained the authority to not accept the recommendation of the board of officers and to elect to direct the applicant’s discharge.
4. Lacking independent evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Thus, the Board finds no error or injustice related to the applicant’s discharge and it concludes that the requested relief is not warranted in this case.
5. 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.
6. 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
__TBR _KH_ __AO _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002079435 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/06/05 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1963/08/30 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-89 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Homosexuality |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 303 | 129.1000 |
| 2. 283 | 128.0000 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071682C070403
On 23 September 1964, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-89 for homosexuality. Inasmuch as the applicant was discharged based on his admission of homosexuality and admitted to performing such acts with military personnel, the Board finds that he was properly discharged in accordance with the applicable regulations in effect at the time and that he was issued the proper discharge. Accordingly, the Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020121
The applicant states that he desires his discharge to be upgraded because service members are no longer being discharged for homosexuality since the repeal of Dont Ask Dont Tell (DADT). c. Class III Cases of overt, confirmed homosexuals who have not engaged in any homosexual acts since entry into active service and individuals who possess homosexual tendencies to such a degree as to render them unsuitable for military service. Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002475
On 8 February 1966, the applicant was notified by his immediate commander that discharge action was being initiated against him for unfitness/unsuitability (homosexuality) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-89 (Personnel Separations Homosexuality). On 8 February 1966, the immediate commander recommended the applicant be discharged for unfitness/unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-89, due to the applicant's homosexual tendencies. The evidence of record shows...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090649C070212
There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. However, his post-service conduct and the fact that he got an honorable discharge prior to his reenlistment is an insufficient basis to grant the relief requested as the period of service in question was not totally honorable. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091390C070212
He had engaged in homosexual relationships during the time he was enlisted and up until the present, but not with anyone in military service. There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant admitted to being a homosexual no less than three times and signed sworn statements to that effect at least twice.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001819C070206
As far as he could tell the private was not a homosexual. Class I included those cases which involved an invasion of the rights of another person as where the homosexual act was accompanied by assault or coercion or where cooperation or consent was obtained through fraud; Class II included those cases wherein personnel subject to court-martial jurisdiction engaged in one or more provable homosexual acts not within the purview of Class I; Class III included cases of overt, confirmed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001819C070206
As far as he could tell the private was not a homosexual. Class I included those cases which involved an invasion of the rights of another person as where the homosexual act was accompanied by assault or coercion or where cooperation or consent was obtained through fraud; Class II included those cases wherein personnel subject to court-martial jurisdiction engaged in one or more provable homosexual acts not within the purview of Class I; Class III included cases of overt,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074586C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant’s commander submitted a request to discharge the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-89 on 23 October 1961.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 04102235C070208
A statement from the other Soldier was also included in the applicant's file and was consistent with the statement that the applicant provided. c. such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation by the member during a period of military service. It noted that when the sole basis for separation is homosexuality, a discharge under other than honorable conditions may be issued only if such characterization is warranted and if there is a finding that during the...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2004-171
On July 18, 1963, the applicant’s CO issued a letter to the Commandant recommending that the applicant be discharged from the Coast Guard because an investigation determined that the applicant was a Class II homosexual.2 The CO asked that the Commandant consider giving the applicant an honorable discharge, because the applicant had no “military offenses or civil charges during his enlistment.” On July 24, 1963, the Commandant directed that the applicant be discharged from the Coast Guard...