Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00213
Original file (BC-2003-00213.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00213

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be  upgraded  to  general  (under  honorable
conditions).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Since being  released  from  confinement  over  a  year  ago,  he  has  been
successfully employed at St. Regis Auto Body.  The only fine or  trouble  he
has been in, in this time period is a $20 seat belt fine.   He  has  managed
to save money, stay out of trouble,  maintain  a  good  job  and  help  with
community projects. He is asking for this upgrade in his  discharge  because
he is always looking toward the future.   He  feels  the  only  way  he  can
better himself anymore is to get the best job possible for him. To do  this,
he feels an upgrade would be a tremendous help.   Looking  at  his  military
records, the Board will see that he was a good troop.  He knows  he  made  a
mistake, he paid his dues, overcame the consequences, and now  he  is  ready
to move on with his life.  If the Board has any  questions  about  his  work
ethic or dedication, the Board may contact and ask TSgt  B___  of  the  62nd
Civil Engineer Squadron at McChord AFB, WA.

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal  statement,  and  a
copy of DD Form 293, Application for the Review of  Discharge  or  Dismissal
from the Armed Forces of the United States.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  9  December  1999  and  was
progressively promoted to the grade of airman.

On 22 May 2001, he was tried by a general court-martial for wrongful use  of
cocaine more than once, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ.   The  applicant
pled guilty and chose to be tried by military  judge  alone.   The  military
judge found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to receive a bad  conduct
discharge, be confined for six months, forfeit all pay and  allowances,  and
be reduced to the pay  grade  of  E-1.   On  10  July  2001,  the  convening
authority approved the sentence as adjudged.  The applicant  was  discharged
on 20 November 2002.  He served 2 years, 6 months, and  12  days  on  active
duty.

Because  his  approved  sentence  included  a  bad  conduct  discharge,  the
applicant’s conviction was reviewed by  the  Air  Force  Court  of  Criminal
Appeals.  On 20 June 2002, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals  affirmed
the findings of guilty and the sentence.  The applicant did not appeal  this
decision.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial and states that there is  no  legal  basis  for
upgrading applicant’s discharge.  The  appropriateness  of  the  applicant’s
sentence, within the prescribed limits, is a matter  within  the  discretion
of the court-martial and may be mitigated  by  the  convening  authority  or
within the course of the appellate review process.  The  applicant  had  the
assistance of counsel in presenting extenuating and  mitigating  matters  in
their most favorable light to the court and the convening authority.   These
matters were considered in review of the sentence.  The applicant  was  thus
afforded all  rights  granted  by  statue  and  regulation.   The  applicant
provides no compelling  rationale  to  mitigate  the  approved  bad  conduct
discharge given the circumstances of the case.

AFLSA/JAJM complete 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 17  Jan
03 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice that would  warrant  an  upgrade  of  his
discharge.  We agree with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis  for
our conclusion that he has not been the victim of  an  error  or  injustice.
Evidence has not been provided which would  lead  us  to  believe  that  the
action taken to affect his discharge from the  Air  Force  was  improper  or
contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations  at  the  time;  or,
that the characterization of his service was based  on  factors  other  than
his own misconduct.  Therefore, based on the available evidence  of  record,
we find no compelling basis upon which  to  recommend  granting  the  relief
sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of a 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-2003-00213
in Executive Session on 29 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member
                       Mr. John L. Robuck, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Apr 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 20 May 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jun 03.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03787

    Original file (BC-2002-03787.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2003-03090

    Original file (BC-2003-03090.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2002 | 0103031

    Original file (0103031.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence on 24 November 1999. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM recommends the application be denied. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00882

    Original file (BC-2003-00882.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-00080

    Original file (BC-2003-00080.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The AFLSA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that he never stole the kits and was deceived by the person that actually stole the kits that the kits were out of date. His lawyer told him that if he pled guilty, he would just get a year of confinement and a fine; whereas, if he did not, he could face 20 years of confinement. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00673

    Original file (BC-2004-00673.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00278

    Original file (BC-2004-00278.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201267

    Original file (0201267.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01496

    Original file (BC-2003-01496.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his appeal, the applicant provided extracts from his available military personnel records. The basis of the applicant's request for relief was insufficient to warrant setting aside the Article 15 action, and did not demonstrate an equitable basis for relief. By letter, dated 19 Aug 03, the Board's staff requested that the applicant provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00167

    Original file (BC-2003-00167.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00167 INDEX CODE: 106.00, 110.02 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). On 28 July 1988, the Air Force Court of Military Review affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence as approved by the convening...