| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern | Member | |
| Ms. Mae M. Bullock | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was told that he could apply for an upgrade after 6 months. He further states that he was not guilty of the offenses for which he was charged. The applicant requests to personally appear before the Board.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered active duty on 17 April 1979 with immediate reenlistments on 5 February 1981 and 31 December 1984. At the time of the offences he was a staff sergeant (E-6) serving in Germany.
During an investigation into the death of a soldier, the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) of the Criminal Investigation Command (CIC) obtained information of alleged homosexual acts on the part of three soldiers.
As a result of this investigation the applicant’s command recommended that he be permanently disqualified from the Personnel Reliability Program based on the alleged homosexual acts.
On 16 February 1989 the applicant submitted a letter rebutting the disqualification.
On 3 March 1989 CIC finalized its investigation of the three other soldiers and found that there was sufficient evidence to proceed with charges of sodomy, false swearing and indecent acts with another. During this investigation the applicant was also implicated in having had homosexual relations with the other soldiers under investigation. In a sworn statement to CID, the applicant denied any involvement in homosexual activities.
On 20 March 1989 the applicant’s unit commander notified him that he was recommending that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 15, for homosexual acts. The unit commander recommended a general discharge.
The applicant acknowledged receipt to this notice and submitted a written rebuttal of the charges on 22 March 1989. In this statement he continued to aver that he was not homosexual nor had he committed any homosexual act.
After consulting with military counsel, the applicant submitted a request to have his case heard by a board of officers, requesting to make a personal appearance and to be represented by counsel.
An Administrative Separation Board was convened on 12 May 1989 at Aschaffenburg, West Germany. It heard testimony on both 12 May 1989 and, due to non-availability of personnel, again on 20 May 1989.
During the hearing, sworn personal testimony was taken from the other soldiers implicated in the CID investigation. These soldiers stated that they had seen and/or participated in homosexual acts with the applicant. Several additional witnesses stated that they could not and did not believe that the applicant was a homosexual.
During the board several of the applicant’s superiors described the applicant as a dedicated and hard working noncommissioned officer (NCO) who could be counted on to get the job done. He took the time and effort to work with junior soldiers and was a dedicated leader. He was described as a truly professional and outstanding performer.
The administrative board found that there was sufficient evidence in the form of personal testimony to indicate that the applicant had engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act. They concluded that such conduct was not a departure form the soldier’s usual and customary behavior; was not unlikely to recur; was not accomplished by use of force or coercion and that the continued presence of the applicant in the service was not consistent with the interest of proper discipline, good order and morale. They recommended that the applicant be discharged because of homosexual acts with a general under honorable condition discharge.
The separation authority approved the board’s recommendation and directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 15 for homosexuality and be given a General Discharge Certificate.
The applicant was discharged on 23 June 1989. He had 11 years, 2 months, and 7 days of creditable service. His awards and decorations are listed as the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal with three oak leaf clusters, the Army Service Ribbon, the NCO Professional Development Ribbon with a numeral 2, the Overseas Services Ribbon with numeral 2, the Expert Badge with Rifle Bar, and the Marksman Badge with Grenade Bar.
The Army Discharge Review Board reviewed the applicant’s case and denied him any relief on 15 November 2002.
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.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service and the nature of the offenses.
2. The applicant has provided no evidence or arguments that show that the testimony offered during his administrative board was false or that any of the members offering that testimony had anything to gain by implicating him in their activities.
3. 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.
4. 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.
| CASE ID | AR2002081670 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030807 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110 - UPGRADE CPT 15 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072242C070403
The CIC opinion further states that the subsequent supplemental report characterizing the offenses of adultery, sodomy, and violation of a general order or regulation as having “insufficient evidence” does not warrant removal of the applicant’s name from the title block of the original ROI. The Board notes the applicant’s claim that her name should be removed from the title block of CID investigation number # 97-CID112-59583, from the DCII, and from any other records reflecting the titling...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610893C070209
The applicant contends that at no time was he placed under arrest, told that he was being charged with anything, or given any written charges. That ROI shows that the applicant was titled (the subject of a CID investigation) with six other enlisted soldiers for their involvement with illegal drugs. The CID investigation is silent on the applicant being an informant in the case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055121C070420
Issue 54 was the fact that in the transcripts the board stated that she never denied being a homosexual. However, the Board also notes that according to the transcripts CSM M___ testified that PFC A___ was not the applicant’s subordinate. The Board concludes that there was no evidence at the time of the board hearing and she has provided no evidence now to overcome the conclusion that she did make and sign the 6 May 1982 Sworn Statement in which she admitted to homosexual activity.
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 | CY1995 | 9510676C070209
At one point, her former roommate, who had been discharged, came to Fort Carson where she and the applicant engaged in oral sex. 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. who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex .
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 | 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 | CY2007 | 20070002840C071029
The applicant states that she has never been a homosexual. Military records available were her DD Form 214 for the period ending 23 January 1957; her Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 23 January 1957; a recommendation for promotion, and her separation orders, dated 3 March 1959. Ms. Ga___ stated that at the time they served together the applicant was engaged.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021535
Due to the incidents that have happened in the unit and the statements that I have read I believe that [the applicant] is a homosexual. On 23 August 1988, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendation of the administrative board and directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 15 (Homosexuality) with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) memorandum,...