| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In essence, she believes that under current Army policy she would not have been treated differently because of her homosexual lifestyle. She also states that her name was legally changed in 2000 and that she has provided a court order. The court order was not provided with the application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
That on 1 June 1971, she enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 91A (Medical Corpsman). She completed the training requirements and she was awarded MOS 91A. On 3 October 1971, she was assigned to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, with duties in her MOS.
On 11 January 1972, nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was imposed against the applicant for failing to obey a lawful order not to consume alcoholic beverages in the barracks on 10 January 1972. Her punishment included 7 days of restriction and forfeiture of $25 pay per month for 1 month.
A CID (Criminal Investigation Division) Report of Investigation, dated 1 January 1973, indicates that, on 10 November 1972, at the Munson Hospital Dining Facility, Fort Leavenworth, a female specialist five confessed to a female civilian that she had been a homosexual prior to her entry into the military. On 11 November 1972, the civilian female found a note affixed to the windshield of her vehicle indicating that the specialist five that made the confession had been injured and would be further injured if she continued to talk to her. A CID investigation was initiated after the chief nurse at the hospital reported the incident. The applicant was not the subject of the investigation, but it was during the course of this investigation that the applicant was questioned and admitted that during the period November 1971 - March 1972, while in the Woman’s Army Corps (WAC) Detachment Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, she and another female soldier engaged in numerous acts of oral sodomy, mutual masturbation and fondling.
On 28 March 1973, the applicant’s unit commander notified her that he was initiating action to separate her prior to the expiration of her term of service
under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of unfitness, based on her own admission of homosexual acts while on active duty at Fort Leavenworth. She was informed of her rights.
On 26 April 1973, a medical examination determined that the applicant was physically qualified for separation.
On 1 May 1973, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and authenticated a statement with her signature in which she waived further representation by legal counsel and consideration of her case by a board of officers. She acknowledged that she understood the ramifications of the separation action and she declined the opportunity to submit a statement in her own behalf.
On 24 May 1973, the applicant's commander recommended that she be separated under the provision of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200. The commander stated that the specific factual reason for his recommendation was that by the applicant’s own admission she had committed homosexual acts while on active duty at Fort Leavenworth. The commander also stated that the applicant’s conduct ratings had been good and her efficiency ratings had been excellent.
On 25 May 1973, the intermediate commander recommended separation. On
29 May 1973, the approval authority waived rehabilitation, approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be issued a GD under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for homosexuality.
On 31 May 1973, the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for homosexuality, with a GD. She had completed 2 years of active military service.
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. Chapter 13, then in effect (currently chapter 15), 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. A GD is considered appropriate although an honorable or an undesirable discharge was authorized.
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. The applicant’s discharge process was administratively correct and in conformance with the applicable regulations, then in effect, with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized her rights.
3. The applicant was separated based on a sworn statement that she made concerning her engagement in homosexual conduct while in an active duty status and on government property. Under current standards, she would also be separated. There is no indication that her statement was made under coercion or duress and the applicant has provided no evidence to the contrary.
4. The applicant’s personal conduct while on active duty does not warrant the upgrade of her discharge to that of a fully honorable discharge.
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
__jlp___ __aao___ __phm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003083962 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030923 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (GD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19730531 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200 C13 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A59.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.5900 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2012 | 20120021339
On 31 December 1985, the separation authority approved the proposed discharge action and directed the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 15, with a General Discharge Certificate. The Under Secretary of Defense for 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 (DRB's) and...
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 | CY2002 | 2002082625C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Her narrative reason for separation and her RE code are correct as currently reflected in her records and her RE code is not waivable.
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 | 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 | CY2011 | 20110013942
On 14 March 1983, 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 under honorable conditions. There is no indication she petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge or concerning the narrative reason for her separation within that board's 15-year statute of limitation. Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130008200
The record indicates the applicant was separated from the Army for homosexual admission, with a general discharge under honorable conditions. The evidence of record shows the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 15, paragraph 15-3b, AR 635-200, by reason of homosexual conduct, with a general under honorable conditions discharge. No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 0 No Change: 5 Reason Change: 5 No Change: 0 (Board member names...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064080C070421
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. She believes that the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell“ homosexual policy enacted by President Clinton should be applied retroactively. The applicant has not presented...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000400C070208
Prior to the period of service under review, the applicant served honorably in the Regular Army (RA) from 23 December 1968 until he was separated for reenlistment on 9 February 1971. While an honorable discharge or GD may be issued, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.