RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03031
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The basis for his court-martial was not altogether direct faults of his own
doing. His wife had been writing checks at the same time he was and he
never intended to deceive anyone. Although he pled guilty to all of the
charges, he did so for lesser incarceration after the prosecuting attorney
informed his lawyer that he could face up to 58 years of incarceration.
Throughout his Air Force career, he performed his duties well and to the
best of his ability, even while incarcerated.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from the Executive
Secretary, Air Force Clemency and Parole Board, approving his entry into
the Air Force Return to Duty Program, and a statement from the shift leader
at the Fort Sill Regional Confinement Facility Dining Hall.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
While serving on active duty in the grade of airman first class, the
applicant was tried on 4 August 1999 by a general court-martial consisting
of officers. He was charged with having, with intent to defraud, uttered
107 bad checks during the period 29 March 1998 to 16 February 1999,
totaling approximately $2998.00, in violation of Article 123a, UCMJ. He
pled guilty to all charges and was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge,
six months confinement, total forfeitures, and reduction to the grade of
airman basic (E-1).
On 1 October 1999, the convening authority approved the sentence as
adjudged.
The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence
on 24 November 1999.
On 8 March 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied the
applicant’s petition for review of the lower court’s decision.
On 7 April 2000, a final court-martial order was issued directing that the
bad conduct discharge be executed and the applicant was discharged on 12
April 2000.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLSA/JAJM recommends the application be denied. AFLSA/JAJM states, in
part, that while the applicant contends he was unaware that his wife was
using a separate book of higher numbered checks and did not intend to
deceive anyone, no mention was made at trial of any deceit by his wife.
The military judge specifically determined that the applicant’s intent was
to write bad checks knowing there was no way he would have sufficient funds
to cover them. At trial, the judge asked the applicant, “So none of this
was a result of your wife writing checks you didn’t know about causing you
to have a negative balance?” The applicant’s answer was “No, your honor.”
The AFLSA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 1 March 2002 for review and response within 30 days. However, as of
this date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that
relief should be granted. Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however,
we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. The office
of primary responsibility has adequately addressed applicant’s contentions
and we agree with their opinion and we adopt the rationale expressed as the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden
that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. Hence, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number 01-03031 in
Executive Session on 9 April 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Member
Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Sep 01.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 14 Feb 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Mar 02.
OLGA M. CRERAR
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03093
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant advises that a computed axial scan of the applicant’s head at the time of the accident was normal and an electroencephalogram performed 10 months later was normal, both objective evidence arguing against serious brain trauma or its residuals. The applicant has provided no persuasive evidence that he was denied due process or that the actions taken against him were inappropriate or unsupported by his own...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00213
Looking at his military records, the Board will see that he was a good troop. Because his approved sentence included a bad conduct discharge, the applicant’s conviction was reviewed by the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no compelling basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
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...
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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01267 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to an honorable conditions discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM states that applicant was court-martialed for...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and states that the applicant has been advised through his servicing Military Personnel Flight (MPF) that he was not eligible to be promoted to airman until 11 February 1999, the day following the suspended discharge and will not be eligible for promotion to A1C until 11 December 1999 upon completion of the required 10 months (TIG) provided he...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03090
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03090 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM states an application must be filed within three years after...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02603
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004- 02603 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 21 AUGUST 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. Because the applicant presents insufficient evidence to warrant upgrading the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00882
His primary ministry is to work with prisoners in confinement to show them how crime is the wrong type of life, how he was affected, how God helped him, how God still help him, and how he will help them if they let him. Because his approved sentence included a dishonorable discharge, the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the applicant’s convictions. If every time the Board did something wrong, no matter how big or small, would the Board want someone to not give the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00278
Furthermore, in view of the repeated misconduct during his short period of service that resulted in his court-martial actions and subsequent discharge and the contents of the FBI Report of Investigation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of the applicant’s service on the basis of clemency is warranted. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge is not favorably considered. ...