RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02511 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

There was no error in his case; however, he feels there was an 
injustice in his case based on the fact that he has seen other 
court-martials end up with less severe outcomes than his own. He 
knows what he did was wrong, but it has been over 27 years and he 
feels that he deserves some consideration under clemency. 

 

Since his discharge, he has received a bachelor’s degree from an 
accredited university and has kept out of trouble, except for a 
few minor traffic violations. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement. 

 

A copy of the applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, 
is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 26 April 1984, the applicant, then a senior airman (E-3), was 
tried by special court-martial for wrongful use of controlled 
substances, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ). The applicant pled guilty to the charge 
and specifications and was sentenced to a BCD, confinement for 
three months, forfeiture of $250 pay per month for six months, 
and reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-1). On 11 May 
1984, the convening authority approved the findings and sentence 
as adjudged. On 21 December 1984, after the findings and 
sentence were affirmed by the appellate process, the applicant’s 
BCD was ordered to be executed. 

 

The applicant was discharged on 7 January 1985 with a BCD and a 
narrative reason for separation of “Conviction by Court-Martial 
(Other than Desertion).” He served 5 years, 1 month, and 22 days 


on active duty and had lost time from 26 April 1984 to 8 July 
1984. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states the applicant has not 
alleged an error in his court-martial and acknowledges that what 
he did was wrong. A review of the documents in the applicant’s 
personnel records and the limited information in the Air Force 
Automated Military Justice Analysis and Management System 
(AMJAMS) shows no evidence of error in the processing of the 
applicant’s case. 

 

JAJM indicates the applicant claims injustice in the fact that he 
believes some other court-martials have resulted in lesser 
punishment for seemingly worse crimes than his own. However, 
each court-martial evaluates the facts and circumstances of a 
charge or charges against an airman without regard for how the 
same or similar charges might be handled with another airman, in 
another place or another time. 

 

JAJM indicates that under Title 10, United States Code (USC), 
Section 1552(f), which amended the basic corrections board 
legislation, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military 
Record’s (AFBCMR) ability to correct records related to courts-
martial, is limited. Specifically, Section 1552(f)(1) permits 
the correction of a record to reflect actions taken by reviewing 
authorities under the UCMJ. Additionally, Section 1552(f)(2) 
permits the correction of records related to action on the 
sentence of courts-martial for the purpose of clemency. Apart 
from these two limited exceptions, the effect of Section 1552(f) 
is that the AFBCMR is without authority to reverse, set-aside, or 
otherwise expunge a court-martial conviction that occurred on or 
after 5 May 1950 (the effective date of the UCMJ). 

 

It is JAJM’s opinion that while clemency may be granted under 
Title 10 USC Section 1552 (f) (2), the applicant does not provide 
enough support for action by the Board. His sentence was within 
legal limits and is appropriate for his offenses. To overturn 
this punishment now would require the Board to substitute its 
judgment for that rendered by the court and the convening 
authority over 27 years ago when the facts and circumstances were 
fresh. Additionally, clemency in this case would be unfair to 
those individuals who honorably served their country while in 
uniform. It addition, it would be offensive to those who served 
honorably to extend the same benefits to someone who committed 
crimes such as the applicant’s while on active duty. 

 

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 


 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He does not need or want the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) 
benefits. He just wants his characterization of discharge 
upgraded from a BCD to a general discharge. 

 

The applicant’s complete rebuttal is at 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 
Furthermore, we do not find clemency is appropriate in this case 
since the applicant has not provided any evidence concerning his 
post-service activities. Therefore, the applicant’s request is 
not favorably considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the 
submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered 
with this application. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-02511 in Executive Session on 15 March 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair 

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member 

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-02511 was considered: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Jul 11, w/atch. 

Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 26 Sep 11. 

Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Oct 11. 

Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, not dated. 

 

 

 

 

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

 Panel Chair