Viewing page 20 of 30

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY-PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

its rules and regulations as they existed in 1955; rather, her application seeks to redress the harm done to her because the Air Force acted in accordance with a policy that it has since repudiated.

The fact the applicant received a discharge upgrade in 1968 from "undesirable" to "general," demonstrates that the applicant's record contained no aggravating factors at that time. Even without the prior successful discharge upgrade, the Board should presume the record contained no aggravating factors in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Moreover, the mere presence of aggravating factors is not sufficient to merit the denial of a discharge upgrade. Denial of an upgrade application such as the applicant's is only appropriate where negative aspects of a service member's record are so significant as to outweigh the positive aspects of the veteran's service. There is no indication of any such negative factors in the applicant's record. Therefore, the Board should conclude that there are no aggravating factors or other misconduct on the record that could support the applicant's current discharge status.

Finally, counsel indicates that based on the totality of the applicant's life and circumstances, the Board should upgrade her discharge to honorable on the grounds of justice and equity. Despite having lived with shame, depression, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from her discharge over 60 years ago, the applicant has been an outstanding member of her community as a physical therapist and professor. Upgrading her discharge to honorable would remedy the injustice and inequity she has lived with all this time, give her peace of mind, and give her the honors she deserves at her funeral (Exhibit E).
--------------------------------------------
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice. It appears the applicant's records were more than likely located in the area most heavily damaged by fire in 1973; therefore, the facts surrounding her separation could not be verified. However, the applicant states she was discharged for being a homosexual and is requesting relief under the DADT repeal policy. As noted above, the DoD issued policy guidance that Service Discharge Review Boards should normally grant requests to re-characterize the discharge to honorable, when both of the following conditions are met: (1) the original discharge was based solely on DADT or a similar policy in place prior to enactment of DADT and (2) there were no aggravating factors in the

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
4