| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Lana E. McGlynn | Member | |
| Mr. Larry C. Bergquist | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was unjustly discharged without being asked anything or told anything about why he was being discharged. He goes on to state that he was simply locked up and then discharged without explanation. He further states that he believes that the Army owes him compensation in some way for the damage it has done to him over the past 40 years.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's available military records show:
He enlisted in Detroit, Michigan, on 21 August 1961 for a period of 3 years and training as a medical supply specialist. He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina on 6 February 1962.
The applicant underwent a psychiatric examination on 17 April 1962 and the examining psychiatrist opined that the applicant was free of any mental defect, was able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right. He also indicated that a criminal investigation was conducted by the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) and that the applicant had admitted to engaging in homosexual acts with another soldier on three or four occasions, as a passive partner.
On 6 April 1962, the applicant signed a statement in which he admitted to participating in homosexual acts on three occasions with another soldier, whom he named.
The other soldier was questioned and admitted that he had been engaging in homosexual acts since the age of 14. He underwent a lie detector tests and his statements were confirmed.
On 20 April 1962, his commander initiated action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-89, for engaging in homosexual activities (Sodomy).
The applicant acknowledged by his signature that he had been counseled and advised of the basis for the contemplated separation and waived his rights to counsel and appearance before a board of officers. He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 21 May 1962, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-89 due to Class II Homosexual acts. He had served 9 months and one day of total active service and was issued a Reentry Code of RE-4.
He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 14 June 1962 contending that his discharge was hindering his ability to obtain employment. On 11 October 1962, the ADRB denied his appeal.
Army Regulation 635-89, in effect at the time, set forth the basis authority for the separation of homosexuals. It stated, in pertinent part, that personnel would be discharged under other than honorable conditions if the case falls within Class II. Class II consisted of those cases in which personnel have engaged in one or more homosexual acts not within the purview of Class I (homosexual acts involving a child under the age of 16) during military service.
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 15, currently in effect, provides, in pertinent part, that when the sole basis for separation is homosexuality, the type of discharge will reflect the character of the soldier’s service. A discharge under other than honorable conditions may be issued only if there is a finding that during the current term of service the soldier attempted, solicited or committed a homosexual act in a location subject to military control.
The Manual for Courts-Martial provides the maximum sentences that may be imposed if convicted at trial by court-martial. It provides, in pertinent part, that the maximum sentence that may be imposed for a conviction by a court-martial, for a single violation of Article 125 (Sodomy), is a dishonorable discharge, confinement at hard labor for 5 years, and a total forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
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. It appears that the applicant’s administrative separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations, with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.
3. The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions that he did not know why he was being discharged and finds them to be without merit. He clearly admitted that he participated in at least three acts of sodomy and he named the other soldier, who was also questioned. Furthermore, he acknowledged by his signature that he understood why the commander was recommending his discharge. The evidence of record leaves no doubt as to the applicant’s knowledge of why he was being discharged.
4. 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.
5. 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
__lem___ ___fe ___ ___lb ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002082246 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/05/06 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1962/05/21 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-89 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | CLASS II HOMO |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 563 | 144.4600/A46.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074718C070403
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 17 October 1956, the applicant’s commander submitted a request to discharge the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-89.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004101799C070208
On 8 May 1962, the applicant’s commander submitted a request to discharge the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-89 Personnel Separation (Homosexuality). The applicant’s personnel records contain an Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 25 May 1962. On 8 June 1962, the applicant was discharged from active duty and was issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge under provisions of chapter 12 of Army Regulation 635-89, acceptance of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007824C070205
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. This policy banned the military from investigating service members about their sexual orientation. As a result, he was discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-89, for homosexuality.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014011
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 March 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070014011 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The psychiatrist also recommended that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-89 (Homosexuality). Although under todays standards, Soldiers discharged for homosexuality may be...
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 | CY2011 | 20110015196
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. His record shows that days after his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150005349
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 Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) or prior policies. The evidence of record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000540C070208
The applicant requests that his discharge be upgraded from an undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. He opined that his condition was not amenable to medical or psychiatric treatment in a military setting and recommended that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-89 (Personnel Separation (Homosexuals)). The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief and to excuse failure to timely file.
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.