RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00924 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He never disputed the charges against him. Since his discharge some 21 years ago, he has never been in any kind of trouble. He does not use drugs; it was a one-time mistake that was foolish. He has paid for the lesson and learned from the experience. He is 45 years old and fully understands the ramifications of his actions. He is ashamed and embarrassed to discuss his past with anyone. He is an active member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), American Legion, the Moose Lodge and recently was accepted to become a Freemason. The applicant did not provide any documents in support of his request. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 13 Aug 85, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 16 Oct 89, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for wrongfully taking a blanket in violation of Article 121 (Larceny and Wrongful Appropriation), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). For this misconduct the commander established an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) and filed the LOR in the UIF. On 30 May 91, the applicant was tried by a Special Court- Martial. He was charged with violation of Article 112a (Wrongful Use, Possession of a Controlled Substance), UCMJ. He pled guilty and was found guilty of use and distribution of marijuana in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. He was sentenced to a BCD, confinement for 70 days, forfeiture of $250.00 pay per month for three months and reduction in grade to airman basic. On 18 Jun 91, the convening authority approved the findings and sentence. On 9 Sep 91, the Air Force Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and sentence. On 10 Dec 91, the applicant’s petition to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces was reviewed and denied. On 13 Feb 92, the convening authority ordered the applicant’s BCD to be executed. He served 6 years, 6 months and 13 days of total active service On 7 Nov 13, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states that the applicant alleges no error in the processing of the court-martial conviction against him and his record of trial shows no error in the processing of the court-martial. At his court-martial, the applicant pled guilty to use and distribution of marijuana and was found guilty. This use and distribution was with other airmen. The court received evidence in aggravation, as well as in extenuation and mitigation, prior to crafting an appropriate sentence for the crimes committed. The applicant made an unsworn statement on his behalf and simply stated he was sorry. A BCD was and continues to be part of a proper sentence and properly characterizes his service. Granting clemency in this case, in the form of upgrading his discharge characterization, would be unfair to those individuals 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 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 crimes, such as the applicant while on active duty. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 May 13, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a response. _________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. We note that this Board is without authority to reverse, set aside, or otherwise expunge a court-martial conviction. Rather, in accordance with Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552(f), our actions are limited to corrections to the record to reflect actions taken by the reviewing officials and action on the sentence of the court-martial for the purpose of clemency. We find no evidence which indicates the applicant’s service characterization, which had its basis in his court-martial and was a part of the sentence of the military court, was improper or that it exceeded the limitations set forth in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). We considered upgrading the discharge on the basis of clemency; however, after considering the applicant’s overall quality of service, the court-martial conviction which precipitated the discharge, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted. In view of the above, we cannot recommend approval based on the current evidence of record. _________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-00924 in Executive Session on 17 Dec 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Feb 13. Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 2 May 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 13 Panel Chair