AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98- 00455 
COUNSEL :  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  No 

Applicant  requests that  all  references of  his  court-martial be 
expunged from his  service record.  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.  Vaughn  E.  Schlunz,  Mr.  Richard  A. 
Peterson, and Mr.  Patrick R. Wheeler considered this application 
on  29  September  1998  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Air 
Force Instruction 36- 2603,  and the governing statute, 10,  U.S.C. 
1552. 

, 

Exhibits : 
A.  Applicant's DD Form 1 4 9  
B.  Available Master Personnel Records 
C.  Advisory Opinion 
D.  AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion 

Panel Chair 

DEPARTMENT OF THE  AIR  FORCE 
AIR  FORCE  L E G A L  SERVICES  AGENCY  ( A F L S A )  

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  AFLSNJAJM (Maj Hogan) 
1 12 Luke Avenue, Room 343 
Bolling AFB, DC 20332-8000 

SUBJEC 

4 May 98 

I 

Applicant’s request:  In an application dated 10 Feb 98, the applicant requests that all 

references to his court-martial be expunged from his service record.  On 19 Sep 62, the 
applicant’s court-martial sentence was approved.  The application was not submitted within the 
three year statute of limitations provided by  10 U.S.C. 1552(b). The applicant is aware the 
application is past the three year statute of limitations but believes it is reasonable to have his 
court-martial conviction record expunged. 

Facts of military justice action:  On 24 August 1962, the applicant (then an Airman 

Second Class) plead guilty to two specifications of larceny in violation of Art  121 of the UCMJ. 
The applicant and another Airman stole an Austin 7 engine, which had a value of less than 
$20.00. The applicant and the same Airman also wrongfully appropriated an automobile which 
belonged to another Airman.  The applicant was sentenced to 3 months confinement, forfeiture of 
$50.00 in pay per month for three months and reduction to Airman Basic.  On 1 Oct 62, the 
convening authority remitted the remaining portion of the applicant’s confinement.  The 
applicant had served 39 days confinement. 

Applicant’s contentions:  The applicant states there is no legal error in the record.  The 
applicant believes the court-martial should be expunged from the record.  The applicant alleges 
that civilian offenses are routinely expunged from the record and he believes that he should be 
afforded the same consideration as any defendant in civilian life would receive. 

The applicant claims that the value of the property he stole was equal to one British 

pound which was $2.82 in US dollars in 1962. The applicant states he was told he was given a 
special court-martial instead of a summary court-martial because the co-actor in the offense had 
been in prior trouble.  The applicant and his co-actor allegedly were tried by court-martial at the 
same time.  After being released early from confinement, the applicant served out his full four 
year enlistment and was honorably discharged from the service on 6 Mar 64. 

The applicant provides a chronology of his life after his service in the Air Force to show 
that he has been successful in his civilian life.  Once discharged from active duty, the applicant 

worked as an electronic technician for several years.  The applicant then attended the University 
of Illinois.  In 1974, the applicant entered into the Foreign Service of the United States where he 
served until his retirement in 1992.  He retired in the grade of the Foreign Service Equivalent of 
GS-13.  In 1992, the applicant accepted a civil service position with the U.S. Department of 
State.  The applicant continues to work in this position at the level of GS-14.  The applicant 
indicates that he has continually held a Top Secret clearance with special clearances for access 
depending upon his location and duties.  The applicant has been married for 35 years and has 
three grown children and three grandchildren. 

The applicant admits that his life has not been unduly impacted by having the court- 

martial conviction in his record but feels the conviction is an embarrassment and believes it is 
fair to remove it from the record.  The applicant requests the Special Court-Martial conviction be 
expunged from his record and an amended DD 2 14 be issued which reflects the change. 

Discussion:  The applicant alleges no errors in his Special Court-Martial.  No clear 

injustice occurred during the applicant’s court-martial.  There is no method of expunging the 
applicant’s conviction from his records.  The military justice system is different from the civilian 
court system.  The military justice system does not allow the expungement of a court-martial 
conviction from a military member’s records.  It is also important to note that, although the 
Board has full discretion in granting relief on the sentence imposed in a court-martial, the Board 
does not have the authority to change the findings of a court-martial. 

Recommendation: After reviewing the available records, I conclude that administrative 

relief by this office is not possible.  There are no legal errors requiring correction. The Board 
should note the statute of limitations has also passed.  I recommend the Board interpose the 
statute of limitations or, if the statute of limitations is waived, deny the application on its merits. 

LOREN S. PERLSTEIN 
Associate Chief, Military Justice Division 
Air Force Legal Services Agency