RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03586 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His deceased father’s bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. His father had a drinking problem and served during a time of war. 2. There are no records due to a fire, so any findings by a board in 1955 cannot be reviewed; therefore, his father’s discharge should be overturned. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of a letter and his father’s death certificate. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The former member’s military personnel records appear to have been destroyed in the fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis in 1973. Data extracted from his reconstructed records reflects that he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23 Jan 53, was discharged on 26 Sep 55, and was issued a BCD. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provided a copy of an Investigative Report (Exhibit C). On 10 Apr 12, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. At the same time, the applicant was offered an opportunity to provide information pertaining to his deceased father’s activities since leaving the service (Exhibit F). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states during the applicant’s deceased father’s brief tenure on active duty, he received four court-martial convictions and two Article 15s, Uniform Court of Military Justice(UCMJ), punishments. The applicant’s allegation of injustice amounts to no more than a claim that his deceased father was a lifelong alcoholic and served his country in a time of war. Given that the Korean War was largely over by mid 1953, this is hardly persuasive. The applicant’s father pled guilty at trial to the charge. Prior to accepting his guilty plea, as evidenced by the record of trial, the president of the court ensured the applicant’s father understood that the plea of guilt meant he was subjected to a finding of guilt without further proof of the offense. On the court’s acceptance of his guilty plea, it received evidence in aggravation, as well as in extenuation and mitigation, prior to crafting an appropriate sentence for the crime committed. The members took all of these factors into consideration when imposing the sentence. The sentence adjudged was below the maximum possible sentence. Rules for Court-Martial 1003(b)(8)(C) states that a BCD “is designed as punishment for bad conduct.” It also indicates that a BCD is more than merely a service characterization; it is a punishment for the crimes he committed while a member of the armed forces. His sentence to a BCD was well within the legal limits and was an appropriate punishment for the offense committed. A BCD was and continues to be part of a proper sentence and properly characterizes his service. Granting clemency in this case would be unfair to those individuals who honorably served their country while in uniform. Congress’ intent in setting up the Veteran’s Benefits program was to express thanks for veterans’ personal sacrifices, separations from family, facing hostile enemy action and suffering financial hardships. All rights of a veteran under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs are barred where the veteran was discharged or dismissed by reason of the sentence of a general court-martial. This makes sense if the benefit program is to have any real value. It would be offensive to all those who served honorably to extend the same benefits to someone who committed a crime, such as the applicant’s father did while on active duty. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that after looking at the FBI report it is difficult to come up with something he did, after his discharge from the Air Force that was worthwhile. The one and only joy in his father’s life was the birth of his sister, which is the main reason he is asking that his father’s BCD be upgraded to a general. The applicant states he wants his sister to have access to some Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. He realizes his deceased father is not a prime candidate for upgrade but prays the Board will consider his request. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ 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 AFLOA/JAJM and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant’s deceased father has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis for us to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ 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 Docket Number BC-2011-03586 in Executive Session on 31 May 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Sep 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Reconstructed Personnel Records. Exhibit C. FBI Report, dated 29 Mar 12. Exhibit D. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 5 Dec 11. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 23 Feb 12. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 10 Apr 12. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant’s, dated 30 Apr 12. Panel Chair