RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02636
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge be upgraded.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He joined the Air Force for a career; however, during his tour in Germany,
his parents became financially dependent upon him, and required his
immediate presence.
The applicant states that he was told by fellow servicemembers that by
wrongfully committing the offenses leading to his discharge, he could
quickly get out of the Air Force and go home. He was immature at the time.
He regrets his actions, and is sincerely sorry for what he has done. He
was also told by his counsel that after 3 to 5 years, his type of discharge
would be upgraded to a “general discharge with intentions.”
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 18 September 1973, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a
period of four years.
On 15 January 1974, the commander notified him of his intent to impose
nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) for violating Article 86. Specifically, that on or about 13
January 1974, at Lackland AFB, Texas, he failed to go at the time
prescribed to his appointed place of duty. He waived his right to a trial
by court-martial and accepted the nonjudicial punishment. After
considering his presentation, the commander determined that he did commit
the alleged offense and imposed nonjudicial punishment consisting of
reduction to the grade of airman basic and forfeiture of $50.00. However,
the portion of the punishment, which provided for reduction in grade, was
suspended until 15 April 1974, at which time it would be remitted without
further action.
On 7 June 1977, the commander notified him of his intent to impose
nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) for violating Article 121. Specifically, that on or about
27 May 1977, at Rhein-Main AB, Germany, he stole a cassette tape, of a
value of about $5.50, the property of the Army Air Force Exchange Service
(AAFES). After consulting with military legal counsel, he accepted the
nonjudicial punishment and made an oral presentation to the commander.
After considering his presentation, the commander determined that he did
commit the alleged offense and imposed nonjudicial punishment consisting of
reduction to the grade of airman first class and forfeiture of $25.00.
However, the portion of the punishment, which provided for reduction in
grade, was suspended until 5 December 1977, at which time it would be
remitted without further action.
On 22 and 23 September 1977, he was tried by special court-martial for
larceny and making a false official statement. Specifically, for stealing
a case containing 60 cartons of cigarettes from the Base Exchange, fleeing
on foot and leaving his car, and then reporting to the security police that
his car was stolen to establish an alibi. He pled not guilty to the
charges, but was convicted of both offenses. He was sentenced to reduction
to the grade of airman basic and to receive a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD).
The convening authority disapproved the finding of guilty to making a false
official statement, but approved the sentence.
The Air Force Court of Military Review affirmed the court-martial
conviction and sentence.
The United States Court of Military Appeals denied review of the case, and
on 16 August 1978, the BCD was ordered executed.
On 22 September 1978, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of
AFR 39-12, with service characterized as under other than honorable
conditions, and issued a DD Form 259AF (BCD Certificate). He completed 5
years, 1 months, and 5 days of active service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
AFLSA/JAJM recommends the application be denied. AFLSA/JAJM states, in
part, that given the serious nature of the offenses involved - larceny and
false official statement - a court-martial was an appropriate forum. The
sentence was well within the legal limits and was an appropriate punishment
for the offense of larceny. His court-martial was properly conducted and
he was afforded all the rights accorded by law. AFLSA/JAJM notes that the
court-martial did not adjudge confinement or any forfeiture of pay. While
the applicant contends that he was immature at the time, he was almost 28
years old at the time. He has provided no evidence of a clear error or
injustice related to the sentence and presents insufficient evidence to
warrant upgrading his BCD.
AFLSA/JAJM states that the Board’s authority to correct court-martial
records is limited to correction of a record to reflect the actions taken
by reviewing authorities under the UCMJ and to take action on the sentence
for the purpose of clemency.
AFLSA/JAJM notes that the applicant may apply for a Presidential pardon
under the provisions of Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1.1.
Such applications are considered only if at least five years have passed
since trial or completion of sentence, and the decision to grant or
withhold such pardons is made primarily on the basis of post-trial conduct
and citizenship.
The AFLSA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied, and states, in part, that
the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation, and within the discretion of the
discharge authority. The applicant did not submit any new evidence or
identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge
processing.
The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 20 December 2002 for review and response within 30 days.
However, as of this date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 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 Air Force Legal
Services Agency, Military Justice Division (AFLSA/JAJM) has adequately
addressed applicant’s contentions and we agree with their opinion and 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 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 BC-2002-02636
in Executive Session on 13 March 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Aug 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 5 Nov 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Dec 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Dec 02.
DAVID W. MULGREW
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01739
He receive a Presidential pardon removing his court-martial conviction and bad conduct discharge (BCD) from his record. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. As such, applicant's request for a Presidential pardon is not possible since such action is not within the purview of this Board's authority.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00291
He had completed a total of 12 years, 8 months and 18 days and was serving in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the time of discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFLSA/JAJM recommends the application be denied. The record of trial indicates this case was fully litigated.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to applicant’s court-martial and non-judicial punishments, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM recommends the application be denied. While the applicant believes a bad conduct discharge was harsh based on the fact he was a first-time offender, we...
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-2003-02855
If the Board cannot pardon him or chooses not to do so, he requests that his FBI record be corrected to reflect that he was only arrested once, not twice as his record reflects. On 6 Oct 00, the applicant requested a waiver of his “4F” RE code to allow him to reenlist in the Air Force. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his RE code.
His reduction to the grade of E-1 be remitted and he be reinstated to the grade of staff sergeant. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial. If the Board feels it is in the best interest of the Air Force to retain the member, it should restore his grade to staff sergeant or grant a HYT waiver to extend him until December 2005.
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: 02-01953 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her bad conduct discharge be upgraded to general under honorable conditions and that her records list “conspiracy” as a misdemeanor and not a federal crime. On 23 April 1996, the Air Force Discharge Review Board reviewed and returned...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00532
_________________________________________________________________ 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 at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant’s contentions are without merit and the...
_________________________________________________________________ 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 at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant’s contentions are without merit and the...