AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00001 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

Applicant  requests that  her  13  July  1990 bad  conduct discharge be 
upgraded  to  general  or  honorable.  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 
As 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response 
of this date, no response has been received by this office. 

(Exhibit D). 

+ 

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,  Messrs.  David  C.  Van  Gasbeck,  Richard  A. 
Peterson, and  Jackson A. Hauslein, considered  this  application on 
20 October  1998  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Air  Force 
Instruction 3 6 - 2 6 0 3   and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552. 

-Chair Pa 

Exhibits: 
A.  Applicant's DD Form 149 
B.  Available Master Personnel Records 
C.  Advisory Opinion 
D.  SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 
AIR  FORCE  LEGAL Sf RVICES AGENCY  (AFLSA) 

6 \I  MAR 1998 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM: AFLSA/JAJM(Lt Col Petrow) 
112 Luke Avenue, Room 343 
Bolling Air Force Base, DC 20332-8000 

SUBJECT:  Correction of Military Rec 

Applicant’s request:  In an undated application, the applicant requests that her special 
court-martial punishment of a bad conduct discharge, ordered executed on 3 July 1990, be 
upgraded to general under honorable conditions.  The application was not submitted within the 
three-year limitation provided by  10 U.S.C.  1552(b). The applicant’s basis for the untimely 
submission is that female military members have been encouraged to report incidents of sexual 
traumdassault . 

Facts of military justice action:  On 5 Oct 1989, the applicant (then-Airman First Class) 

was charged with: making false official statements on 12 and 30 June 1989 to Security Police 
and Air Force Office of Special Investigations investigators to the effect that her purse and 
checkbooks had been stolen; passing 23 bad checks on 9 and 10 .Tun  1989, totaling $3005; and, 
passing six bad checks on 14 June 1989, totaling $669.  On 11 Oct 1989, the charge was referred 
to a special court-martial, On 20 October 1989 she was tried at Eglin AFB, Florida, where she 
was found guilty in accordance with her pleas.  The miIitary judge sentenced the applicant to 
receive a bad conduct discharge, three months confinement, forfeiture of $430 pay per month for 
three months, and reduction to E-1 . On 22 Nov 1989, the convening authority approved the 
sentence as adjudged.  On 20 Dec 1989 the convening authority remitted the unexecuted portion 
of the sentence to confinement.  On 10 Jan 1990, the Air Force Court of Military Review 
affirmed the findings and sentence.  On 5 Jun 1990, the Court of Military Appeals denied the 
applicant’s petition for review.  The bad conduct discharge was ordered executed on 3 Jul 1990. 

The applicant’s contentions:  The applicant contends that her actions resulting in her 
court-martial were the result of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  She asserts that the 
PTSD resulted from her having been sexually assaulted.  Although she reported the incident, she 
claims that no action was taken against the individual.  The applicant alleges that her superiors 
made her feel that she was totally responsible for the incident‘. Her senior reporting officials 
made her feel cheap and worthless.  She believes she is a good person and not responsible for the 
incident.  The applicant asserts that, had senior officials listened and acted at the time of the 
incident, her integrity would have been restored and her actions different.  She holds the Air 
Force and her assailant totally responsible for her actions of 9 and 10 Jun 1989. 

980000 1 

The applicant also claims that her representation at trial was improper and inadequate. 
Although at the time of trial she indicated she was satisfied with her defense, she now believes 
that her entire testimony was given at a time during which she was under mental duress due to 
the actions and inaction of her superior in relation to the assault. 

Discussion: At trial, the military judge explained to the applicant her rights regarding 

representation.  She elected to be represented b 
a qualified and certified 
military trial defense counsel.  Before accepting the applicant’s pleas of guilty and after 
explaining her rights to a trial, the military judge inquired as to whether she was satisfied with 
her defense counsel to which she responded afhatively. The military judge then made a 
through inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the charges.  He discussed the facts 
as provided in a Stipulation of Fact after ascertaining that the applicant had read and agreed to its 
contents. The military judge then explained the elements of the offenses charged and asked the 
applicant to explain what happened in her own words.  After giving the applicant an opportunity 
to discuss the matter once more with her attorney, the applicant assured the judge that she still 
intended to plead guilty.  During the sentencing portion of the trial, the applicant made an 
unsworn statement in which she described a strict upbringing that prevented her from developing 
a sense of responsibility.  No mention was made of any sexual assault.  Her defense counsel then 
made a cogent sentencing argument. 

The applicant has not provided any justifiable basis for the granting of her request.  The 

offenses were serious and constituted a departure from the standards expected of Air Force 
members.  The applicant’s desire for a general discharge must be carefully balanced against the 
need for maintaining good order and discipline in the military.  Considering the nature of the 
offense, the punishment of a bad conduct discharge was not overly severe.  In conclusion, the 
applicant’s court-martial was properly convened and conducted and had jurisdiction over the 
applicant and the offense. .The applicant’s conviction and sentence were considered during 
clemency and on appeal and ultimately upheld.  The applicant has not provided the Board with 
any information, which warrants reversing the informed decision of the military judge, the 
convening authority, or the appellate courts. 

Recommendation:  After a review of the available records, I conclude there are no legal 

errors requiring corrective action and granting the applicant’s request is not warranted.  The 
applicant’s court-martial and resulting punishment were properly executed and legally sufficient. 
I recommend that the applicant’s request be denied. 

Air Force Legal Services Agency