AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 97-00716
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
i
FEE 51999
Applicant requests that his dishonorable discharge be upgraded.
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request
and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the
application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D).
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
After careful consideration of applicant's request and the
available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of
error or injustice to warrant corrective action. The facts and
opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the
evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which
entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or
appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to
disturb the existing record.
Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and
will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant
evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the
application was filed.
Members of the Board Mr. Henry C. Saunders, Ms. Ann L. Heidig,
and Ms. Sophie A . Clark considered this application on 10 Dec 98
in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 3 6 -
2603 and the governing statute, 10 U . S . C . 1552.
I
/
Exhibits :
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
4 :
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY (AFLSA)
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: AFLSNJAJM
112 Luke Avenue, Room 343
Bolling AFB, DC 20332-8000
SUBJECT: Correction of Military Records
pplicant’s request: In an application dated 17 February 19
he applicant, requests that his dishonorable discharge from
e no specific characterization is requested, it can be assumed th
punitive discharge to be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant’s dishonorable
discharge went into effect on 13 April 1992. The application was not submitted within the three-
year limitation provided by 10 U.S.C. 1552(b) and is untimely. The applicant states no basis for
the untimeliness of his request.
Facts of military justice action: On 22 February 199 1, a general cou&-martial
convicted the applicant of desertion in violation of Article 85 of the UCMJ. The applicant was
irman First Class assigned to the 7’ Munitions Maintenance Squadron,
n about 24 April 1990, the applicant failed to show up for work and could not be
not return to military control until 7 December 1990 when he was arrested by
r criminal mischief and bond forfeiture.
arge, confinement for 1 year, forfeiture of
civilian law enforcement i
The applicant was sentence
$450.00 pay per month for 12 months and reduction to E-1 . The Air Force Court of Military
Review affirmed the lower court’s decision on 13 November 199 1.
Applicant’s contentions: The applicant wants to have his discharge upgraded for
employment purposes. He has provided no documents in support of his request.
Discussion: The applicant’s application is untimely. He also provides no compelling
reason as to why his discharge should be upgraded. The applicant deserted from the Air Force.
He was returned to military control only after being arrested by civilian police over seven months
later. A dishonorable discharge is appropriate for the offense of desertion. Air Force Instruction
36-3203, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, para 4.1, requires the applicant to
prove sufficient evidence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant has provided no
information alleging any material error or injustice. The applicant’s court-martial was properly
convened and had jurisdiction over the applicant and the offenses tried. The decision of the court
and sentence was ultimately affirmed by the Air Force Court of Military Review. The applicant
does not challenge the underlying offenses for which he was convicted. A discharge upgrade is
not warranted in this case.
Recommendation: The applicant's request is untimely and should be denied for failing
to comply with the statute of limitations. The applicant has provided no basis for upgrading his
dishonorable discharge to an honorable discharge. I recommend the Board deny this application
based upon the statute of limitations, or, if waived, deny the application on its merits.
LOREN S. PERLSTEIN
Associate Chief, Military Justice Division
Air Force Legal Services Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01656
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01656 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His dishonorable discharge be upgraded to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). He did not report for duty for the next three days. Because his approved sentence included a dishonorable discharge, the applicant’s convictions were...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00988
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00988 INDEX CODE: 106.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 29 September 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His dishonorable discharge be upgraded. Upon completion of the appellate review of his general court-martial conviction, applicant was discharged on 20 October 1994...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00882
His primary ministry is to work with prisoners in confinement to show them how crime is the wrong type of life, how he was affected, how God helped him, how God still help him, and how he will help them if they let him. Because his approved sentence included a dishonorable discharge, the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the applicant’s convictions. If every time the Board did something wrong, no matter how big or small, would the Board want someone to not give the...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Discussion: The record of trial makes it clear that the applicant dishonorably failed to pay the five debts as alleged in the charge and five specifications. It would appear that the defense counsel advised the applicant to plead guilty because the evidence against him was overwhelming.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00795
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00795 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 SEP 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a under honorable conditions (general) discharge. The applicant was tried by general court martial on 12 April 1990 for: Charge...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03455
On 13 October 1989, the Air Force Court of military review affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence. For his offenses, the applicant was tried and convicted by a general court martial. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2002- 03455 in Executive Session on 20 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member Mr. Kenneth Dumm,...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01267
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS We also find no evidence to indicate the applicant’s service characterization, which had its basis in his conviction by General 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 UCMJ. We have considered applicant's overall quality of service, the General Court-Martial conviction that precipitated the discharge, and the seriousness of the offenses of which...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-03842
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Specifically, the 24 Oct 05 action provides: “the sentence is approved, and except for the Dishonorable Discharge, will be executed.” The language deferring execution of the DD is required by the UCMJ, which requires a final judgment as to the legality of the proceedings before a sentence to death, dismissal, DD, or BCD can be executed. The applicant’s request should be denied as untimely as the alleged injustice, i.e. defective action by...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03860
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03860 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded. The applicant was discharged effective 5 February 1991 with a BCD and a narrative reason for separation of Conviction by Court- Martial (Other than Desertion). He served 3 years, 6 months, and 22 days on...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00327
They were court-martial and received one year of confinement and a dishonorable discharge. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. The sentence included one-year confinement and a dishonorable discharge.