RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01800
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He is not guilty of the charges for which he was court-martialed and
he has tried for 30 years to get his discharge upgraded. He also
states that he has never seen the evidence that the Air Force said
belongs to him. He further states that the investigation that was
being conducted was not aimed at him. He was asked to give
information on other airmen which he had no knowledge of and was
therefore, threatened with long jail time.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by
the appropriate office of the Air Force.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLSA/JAJM states that the record of trial indicates another airman
provided a statement to the Air Force Office of Special Investigations
(AFOSI) implicating several airmen, including the applicant, in the
wrongful use of marijuana. Applicant was subsequently interviewed by
AFOSI and confessed to using marijuana. On 25 July 1967, he provided
a sworn written statement to AFOSI stating he had used marijuana on
two separate occasions in late May or early June 1967 with another
airman in his barracks at Laredo AFB, TX. He consented to a search of
his dorm room. During the search, the AFOSI confiscated two burned,
hand-rolled joints found between the pages of a green book in the
applicant’s locked personal locker. The butts tested positive for the
presence of marijuana. The applicant was represented by defense
counsel at trial. The applicant pled guilty to all charges and
specifications and the evidence supported the plea of guilty.
They state the applicant’s drug use was inconsistent with the good
order and discipline essential to the successful performance of the
Air Force mission. His prior good service neither negates nor
mitigates the extent to which the applicant’s military service failed
to meet the standard of conduct demanded of every military member.
Given the serious nature of the offense involved—use of marijuana---a
court-martial was an appropriate forum to address the misconduct. The
court-martial sentence was less than the maximum authorized for the
offense committed. The findings of guilty and the approved sentence
were affirmed during a subsequent review by a judge advocate pursuant
to Article 69(a). A review of the record of trial does not indicate
any basis for action.
They state the applicant has failed to allege any injustice or error
requiring relief as to the court-martial and no further action in that
regard should be taken. Therefore, they defer to personnel for
appropriate action on the discharge and restrict their opinion to
review of the military justice action.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 25 January 2002, a complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was
forwarded to applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of
this date, no response has been received.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. We find no impropriety
in the characterization of applicant’s discharge. It appears that
responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the
separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent
regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the
rights to which entitled at the time of discharge. We conclude,
therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and
characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing
circumstances.
4. The only other basis to warrant an upgrade of his discharge
would be on clemency. However, after reviewing his overall service
record and the documentation pertaining to his post-service conduct,
we do not believe an upgrade is justified based on clemency.
5. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice;
that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 20 March 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jun 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 14 Nov 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Jan 02.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03329
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The following information was extracted from the applicant’s submission, his military records, and the Air Force Office of Special Investigation (AFOSI) Report of Investigation (ROI) dated 21 May 02. He denied using controlled substances and, after further questioning, requested legal counsel. Because there is no evidence before us that the EPR would have been different without the first specification in...
The Board has no authority to grant the applicant’s request to set aside or seal the applicant’s court-martial conviction. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 24 August 1998 for review and response. Further, as noted by the Associate Chief, Military Justice Division, this Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02606
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02602 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge. The Air Force Court of Criminal Review affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence on 5 March 1990. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02680
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 03-02680 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her bad conduct discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions) and her rank be reinstated to airman (E-3) or senior airman (E- 4). _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On...
Her husband’s date of discharge be corrected to reflect that he was discharged in 1946 versus 1950. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter(s) prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, D &E. Pursuant to the Board’s request for information, the FBI indicated that, on the basis of the evidence provided, they were unable to locate an arrest record pertaining to the former...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00690
The investigation was not about his off-duty marijuana use, but his LSD use at a party. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice. The applicant’s counsel cites a case previously decided by this Board and two cases previously decided by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) asserting, in essence, that similar clemency consideration should be applied to the applicant’s case and the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00673
Pursuant to the Board's request, the FBI, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM indicated that under 10 USC 1552(f), the AFBCMR’s ability to correct records related to courts-martial is limited. We do not believe an honorable discharge is warranted due to the limited documentation provided by the applicant regarding his activities since his...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The Chief, Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed the application and states that the Article 15 was based on the applicant’s conduct with two different female airmen. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. The Retirement Programs and Policy Section, AFPC/DPPRRP, reviewed the application and states that the applicant was correctly retired in the grade of senior master sergeant,...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00327
When the applicant was discharged he received an RE code of “2B” which indicated the applicant was involuntarily separated with a general or UOTHC discharge. The AFDRB reviewed the applicant’s discharge and determined the discharge should be upgraded based on the applicant’s overall quality of service, however, the discharge upgrade still fell under the purview of the RE code “2B”. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...