AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 9 8 - 0 0 4 7 5
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
* .- L
AUG 2 1 5996
Applicant requests that his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to
an 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
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. Charles E. Bennett, Mr. Michael P.
Higgins, and Ms. Peggy E. Gordon considered this application on 6
August 1998, in accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1 5 5 2 .
CHARLES E. AENNETT
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 1 4 9
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
DEPARTMENT O F THE AIR FORCE
A I R FORCE L E G A L S E R V I C E S AGENCY ( A F L S A )
13 April 1998
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: AFLSNJAJM (Maj Hogan)
1 12 Luke Avenue, Room 343
Bolling AFB, DC 20332-8000
SUBJECT: Correction of Military Records
- -
t’s request: In an application dated 24 February 1998
applicant, requests that his dishonorable discharge h
norable discharge. The applicant’s dishonorable discharge went into &kc. op
14 August 1985. The application was not submitted within the three-year limitation providexhy
10 U.S.C. 1552(b) and is untimely. The applicant states on the DD Form 149 that the reason b
request was untimely was because he had just discovered he had a right to request the
characterization of his discharge be upgraded.
Facts of military justice action: On or about 21 September 1984, a general court-
martial panel consisting of officers found the applicant, contrary to his pleas, guilty of two
specifications under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), specifically
wrongful distribution of marijuana and wronghl distribution of cocaine. The basis for the
charge and the specifications was the result of an OS1 sting operation. An active duty
government informant purchased marijuana and cocaine h m the applicant at the applicant’s off-
base residence.
The members sentenced the applicant to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for two
years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and reduction to airman basic. The convening
authority apppved &wntcmc as adjudged. On 24 January 1985, the United States Air Force
Rewiedraed the findings of guilty and the sentence. On 21 March 1985,
Court of
Court of M h a r y Appeals denied the applicant’s petition for review. On 9 May
the United
1985, the Air P&ec Clemeacy and Parole Board did not approve clemency in the applicant’s
case. On 28 June 1985, a final court-martial order was issued ordering the dishonorable
discharge to be executed. On 14 August 1985, the applicant was discharged with a dishonorable
discharge.
Applicant’s contentions: The applicant believes his discharge should be upgraded to an
honorable discharge. The applicant alleges
applicant did not indicate Colone
commander) stated during an office
e of his court-martial, Colonel
but it is assumed Colonel
officers will come up with guilty
. * -
_ I
Recommendation: The applicant’s request is untimely and should be denied for failing
to comply with the statute of limitations. Further, after reviewing the available records, I
conclude that administrative relief by this office is not warranted. The applicant has failed to
provide a sufficient 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.
Associate Chief, Military Justice Division
Air Force Legal Services Agency
On 18 December 1987, the general court-martial approving authority approved only so much of the adjudged sentence which provided for a bad conduct discharge, 14 months of confinement, reduction to airman basic, and forfeiture of $438 per month for 14 months. On 23 February 1988, the Air Force Court of Military Review found the approved findings of guilty and the sentence to be correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, affirmed the 2 AFBCMR 96-02123 same. On 29...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03540
In addition, applications must be filed within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or, with due diligence, should have been discovered, His discharge was executed 19 November 2001 and he was separated from the Air Force 27 November 2001. 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...
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 applicant’s request was not timely submitted within the three- year limitation provided by 10 U.S.C. NPRC reconstructed the applicant’s military personnel records to the best of its ability and found no record of an upgrade of discharge.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01539
He was sentenced to reduction in grade to airman basic (E-1), confinement for 15 years, and a dishonorable discharge. On 15 Aug 97, he was discharged pursuant to the General Court- Martial Order, with a dishonorable discharge. ___________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02920
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02920 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 21 MARCH 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general discharge. The applicant was sentenced to be reduced in grade to airman basic, to be confined for twelve months, and to be...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Section 8961, Title 10, U.S.C., (Atch 5) states: “Unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other provision of law a regular or reserve of the Air Force who retires other than for physical disability retires in the regular or reserve grade that he holds on the date of his retirement.” Again, based on the Comptroller...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014202
On 31 December 1985, the United States Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and sentence. The applicant has provided no evidence to show that his discharge was unjust at the time of his offenses. It is noted that if the applicant was found guilty of the charged offenses today, and was convicted at a trial by court-martial, the maximum sentence that may be imposed for a single violation of Article 112a, would be a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances,...
On 28 Oct 92, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant I s request for upgrade of his UOTHC discharge to honorable (Exhibit B). The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-03787
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03787 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. He was found guilty and sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for 32 months, reduction in grade to airman basic (E-1) and forfeiture of all pay...