ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1998-00387-3
INDEX NUMBER: 110.00
COUNSEL: PHILIP D. CAVE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable.
___________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 25 August 1998, the AFBCMR considered and denied the applicant’s
request to upgrade his BCD to honorable. For an accounting of the
facts and circumstances surrounding the application, and the
rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of
Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit E.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Through counsel, the applicant requests that the Board reconsider
his request for a personal appearance. He would like to have a
personal appearance so that he can address his life, career, and
circumstances since leaving the United States Air Force. He wishes
to present his case as a clemency upgrade, based on his post-
discharge conduct and citizenship. Applicant’s counsel presents a
brief summary of the applicant’s life since leaving the Air Force
in 1989.
In support of his appeal, applicant submits a brief from his
counsel, and letters of appreciation and recommendation.
Counsel’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit F.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENTS OF FACTS:
In the Fall of 1988, applicant was stationed at -------------,
Germany. After nine years of Air Force service, he was facing
administrative separation for failure to meet Air Force weight
standards. At the same time, his marriage to another Air Force
member was not going well. In October, November and December, the
applicant wrote multiple drafts upon his credit union account that
were not supported by sufficient funds. He continued writing “bad
drafts” even after his account was closed. The amount of the
checks charged at the court-martial exceeded $3100. The applicant
previously received a UCMJ Article 15 action for writing $1585 in
“bad drafts” in September 1987 at -------, and a letter of
reprimand for writing $1054 worth of “bad drafts” from June through
August, 1988 at -------------.
Applicant was convicted by special court-martial, of three
specifications of UCMJ Article 123a, unlawfully presenting drafts
for the payment of money without sufficient funds, and one
specification of Article 107, making a false statement (to wit:
that his military identification card had been stolen). The
approved sentence was a bad conduct discharge and confinement for
four months. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Air
Force Court of Military Review (AFCMR) and review was denied by the
U.S. Court of Military Appeals. The discharge was executed on
25 Jun 90.
Applicant was discharged with a BCD on 25 June 1990, in the grade
of senior airman. He was credited with 10 years, 6 months, and 29
days of active military service (excludes 3 months and 6 days of
lost time due to confinement).
___________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice. After
careful consideration of the applicant’s most recent submission,
and the evidence presented, we are not persuaded that action to
upgrade the applicant’s discharge based on clemency is appropriate.
The applicant’s discharge had its basis in his trial and
conviction by special court-martial. While the evidence provided
indicates that the applicant has made a successful post-service
adjustment, we do not find the limited evidence provided is
sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief based on
clemency. Should the applicant provide more expansive evidence of
this nature, we would be willing to reconsider his appeal. Without
such evidence, we are not inclinded to favorably consider clemency
in this case.
2. 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 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 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-1998-
00387 in Executive Session on 2 March 2006, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 2 Sep 98,
w/Exhibits A through D.
Exhibit G. Counsel’s Letter, dated 3 Jan 06, w/atchs.
MARILYN M. THOMAS
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02039
The base legal office reviewed the case file and found it legally sufficient to support the discharge and recommended an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states, based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. ...
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-2003-00167
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-000262
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00262 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 JUNE 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His court-marital conviction and bad conduct discharge be mitigated to an administrative discharge. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03281
He appeals to the Board to understand that he loved the Air Force and to upgrade his discharge would not only recognize his 16 years of honorable service but would restore his pride. The military judge and the Air Force Court of Military Review were convinced of the applicant’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. While we find his post-service accomplishments and artistic abilities commendable, and notwithstanding his otherwise good service record, in view of the extreme seriousness of...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | bc-2006-02152
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He is currently serving with the Montana Army National Guard and would like to have his RE code upgraded so he can enlist in the Naval Reserve or even active service. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and directed his separation. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Aug 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02201
He was separated from the Air Force on 17 Apr 91. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 18 Aug 06 for review and comment within 30 days. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02624
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02624 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable. Neither the findings nor sentence were challenged after trial or on appeal, and both were found to be correct in law and fact by the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, and the result of...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02021
His official records be corrected to update his Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) to General (Under Honorable Conditions). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. We find no evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03393
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005- 03393 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 MAY 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Punishment imposed consisted of reduction to the grade of airman, and forfeiture of...