AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET "IBER:  9 8 - 0 2 0 2 8  
COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

Applicant  requests  that  his  bad  conduct  discharge  (BCD)  be 
upgraded  to  general, under  honorable  conditions.  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) . 
Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. 

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  adequately  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 Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Mr. William H. 
Anderson, and Mr.  Joseph A.  Roj  considered this application on 
11 February 1 9 9 9   in accordance with the provisions of Air Force 
Instruction 3 6 - 2 6 0 3 ,   and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1 5 5 2 .  

b 

Exhibits : 
A.  Applicant's DD Form  149s 
B.  Available Master Personnel Records 
C.  Advisory Opinion 
D.  AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion 
E.  Applicant's Response 

i 

t 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM: AFLSNJAJM (Major Love) 
112 Luke Avenue, Room 343 
Bolling Air Force Base, DC 20332-8000 

6  NOV  1998 

Applicant’s request:  The applicant has submitted a DD Form 149, dated 18 July 

1998, requesting that his Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a General, Under 
Honorable Conditions Discharge.  The applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 
1 March 1955.  Accordingly, his application was not submitted within the three-year 
limitation provided by 10 U.S.C.  1552(b) and the criteria established by the case of Detwiler 
v. Pena.  The delay is not addressed in the applicant’s submission. 

-- 

d

Q

l

Facts of military justice action:  The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 

 ended, he was re- 

g

19 December 195 1 for a four-year enlistment.  After basic and technical training, he was sent 
While there, he was convicted by a summary court of being 
After his 13 m o n m o u r
in October 1953.  In April 1954, he was again convicted by 

assigned t
a summary court for failure to go.  A few months later (June 1954), he was convicted by a 
special court-martial of breaking restrictions and using a forged pass, for which he received a 
sentence to 6 months confinement.  Shortly after his confinement ended, the applicant was 
given an Article 15 for being drunk in public.  Part of his punishment was two weeks 
restriction to the confines of- 
base.  He was then court-martialed by a special court comprised of a panel of officers.  The 
court found him guilty of breaking restriction and sentenced him to a BCD, forfeiture of $60 
per month for three months, and confinement at hard labor for three months.  A Board of 
Review affirmed the conviction.  His case was then sent to The Judge Advocate General, who 
affirmed the conviction and sentence.  On 1 March 1955, the BCD was executed. 

During these two weeks, the applicant left the 

Applicant’s contentions:  The applicant contends that he would like an upgraded 

discharge because his military service time has not been credited for “s.s.” (which we 
presume stands for “social security”).  On the DD Form 293s, the applicant indicates that he 
has on-going medical problems which he believes existed during his military service and for 
which he would like to receive medical treatment.  The record of trial fiom the applicant’s 
last court-martial indicates that at the time he was convicted, he believed that his repeated 
acts of misconduct resulted from alcohol abuse.  The applicant has not alleged that the 
Government committed any errors in his case. 

Discussion:  Although the applicant’s Air Force career extended from 195 1 to 1955, 

his credible service was only 2 years, 6 months and 5 days because of “bad time” resulting 
from confinement.  This is because in less than four years, he was punished by one Article 
15, two summary courts and two special courts.  Six months of confinement from his first 
special court-martial did not dissuade him from committing M e r  misconduct only days 
after his release.  In the midst of his punishment for that offense, he again committed 
misconduct by disregarding a direct order.  In short, the applicant was out of control. 
Despite an unusual number of attempts at rehabilitation by the applicant’s commanders, the 
applicant showed a blatant disregard for military orders and an inability to comply with even 
the most rudimentary standards of military discipline. 

Whether a military member’s service ended yesterday or 43 years ago, the purpose of 

the discharge characterization is the same:  to accurately reflect the nature of a member’s 
military service.  The fact that this applicant desires an upgraded discharge to enhance his 
veterans’ benefits is not relevant to the accuracy of his discharge characterization.  In this 
case, the records are clear that the member’s military service was, in fact, bad.  The applicant 
has not submitted anything to support his request for an upgraded discharge, nor has he 
offered any rationale for why his veterans’ benefits should be enhanced. 

Recommendation: After reviewing the available records, I conclude that 

administrative relief by this office is not possible.  There are no legal errors requiring 
correction.  Accordingly, the Board should consider whether the statute of limitations should 
be waived in this case and relief should be granted, with the understanding that none is 
required by law.  Should the Board decide to grant relief, it is within the authority of the 
Board to do so.  Should the Board decide that no relief is warranted, then the Board should 
consider interposing the statute of limitations or denying relief on the merits of the case. 

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