RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02287 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was accused of and found guilty for the illegal use of cocaine. He was accused of date rape; however, this was overturned. There is no error in his record. He is seeking mercy. He asks that the Air Force understand his ignorance and have compassion on him in order that he may receive benefits. The applicant provides no additional documents in support of his appeal. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 April 1985. The applicant was tried and convicted by a general court-martial for the wrongful use of cocaine, in violation of Article 112a, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); rape, in violation of Article 120, UCMJ; communicating a threat and harassing a female both in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The applicant was found not guilty of charges of rape and of adultery. The applicant was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for 10 years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and a reduction in grade to airman basic. The applicant appealed to the Air Force Court of Military Review (AFCMR). On 8 June 1994, the AFCMR reversed the applicant’s convictions for rape and harassment, but affirmed the finding of guilty on the threat and wrongful use of cocaine. The applicant remained in confinement until 15 July 1994. After his return to duty, and while awaiting the rehearing he drove a vehicle while drunk and was disorderly, which resulted in two nonjudicial punishment actions under Article 15, UCMJ. His punishment consisted of a reduction in grade to airman basic. The convening authority did not pursue the rape or harassment offenses and ordered a rehearing only on the sentence. On 11 January 1995, before a military judge, the applicant was sentenced to a BCD, one year confinement and forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 12 months. The applicant appealed to the AFCMR who affirmed the sentence adjudged from the rehearing with the exception of the forfeiture which was disapproved in total on 31 January 1996. On 24 May 1996, the convening authority ordered the BCD executed. On 29 May 1996, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic with a BCD under the provisions of General Court- Martial Order #184. He served 9 years, 4 months and 18 days on active duty. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states the applicant alleges no injustice and no error in the processing of the court-martial conviction against him. His record of trial shows no error in the processing of his court-martial. 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 the applicant committed while a member of the armed forces. The applicant’s sentence to a BCD was well within legal limits, continues to be part of a proper sentence and properly characterizes his service. Clemency in this case would be unfair to those who honorably served their country while in uniform. Congress’ intent in setting up the Veterans’ 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 the reason of the sentence of a general court-martial. It would be offensive to all 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: On 5 August 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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 Chief, Military Justice Division and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ _ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2013-02287 in Executive Session on 28 January 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 May 2013. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 28 June 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 August 2013. 4 3