Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03067
Original file (BC-2005-03067.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03067
                                             INDEX CODE:  100.00
      XXXXXXX                           COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX                           HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  8 April 2007


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general discharge.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

As a young person, he made some very bad  choices  while  in  the  military.
The incidents leading to his discharge were alcohol related and he  has  not
had any alcohol in over 40  to  45  years.   Since  his  discharge,  he  has
married and raised a family.  He and his wife are active  members  of  their
church.  After many years of living a good and moral life, his  BCD  remains
as a blemish and is an embarrassment to him.

In   support   of    the    appeal,    applicant    submits    letters    of
recommendation/support from members of his community and  his  own  personal
statement.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air  Force  on  9
September 1957.  On 6 May  1959,  the  commander  preferred  one  charge  of
assault with intent to commit grievous bodily harm in violation  of  Article
128 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  On  21  May  1959,  the
general  court-martial  convening  authority   referred   the   charge   and
specification for trial by court-martial.  Applicant pled not guilty to  the
charge, but was found guilty.  He was sentenced to a Bad  Conduct  Discharge
(BCD), confinement at hard labor for six months, forfeiture of all  pay  and
allowances for six months and reduction to the grade of basic  airman.   The
adjudged sentence was  approved.   Upon  Article  74  Review,  the  BCD  was
suspended until 31 July 1960, at which time it  would  be  remitted  without
further action; however,  due  to  a  separate  incident  of  driving  while
intoxicated it was vacated and the BCD discharge executed on 14  July  1960.
He was discharged with service characterized as under other  than  honorable
conditions and issued a DD Form 259AF (BCD Certificate).   He  was  credited
with 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day of active service (excludes  203  days  of
lost time due to confinement).

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends the application be denied, and states,  in  part  that
applicant has provided no evidence of a clear error or injustice related  to
the  sentence  of  his  court-martial  conviction.   Although  his  apparent
exemplary life after his conviction  is  commendable,  there  is  no  reason
required by law to grant  the  requested  relief.   Applicant  was  given  a
second chance and the Air Force was willing to allow him to  serve  out  his
enlistment to earn  an  honorable  discharge;  however,  the  applicant  was
involved in  another  incident  and  his  dishonorable  discharge  was  duly
executed.  Applicant may apply for a Presidential pardon which has no  legal
effect other than to  express  forgiveness  by  the  United  States  at  the
highest level.  It cannot affect the  findings  and  sentence  of  a  court-
martial, reinstate one’s former status, nor upgrade  a  discharge/dismissal.
However, it can be highly significant to prospective employers, as  well  as
state and local authorities.

The AFLSA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  6
January 2006, for review and comment, 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest  of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Evidence has not been provided to show that  the  applicant's  discharge
was erroneous or unjust.  The applicant's discharge was based on  his  trial
and conviction by a general court-martial.  While we are  precluded  by  law
from reversing a court-martial conviction, we are authorized to correct  the
records to reflect actions taken by reviewing officials and to  take  action
on the sentence of a military court based on clemency.  While  the  evidence
provided indicates that the applicant has  made  a  successful  post-service
adjustment, there is nothing in the available record which  would  cause  us
to disturb the actions of the reviewing officials in this case.

4.  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 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-2005-03067
in Executive Session on 14 February 2006, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                       Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member
                       Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Sep 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JA, dated 21 Dec 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Jan 06.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03418

    Original file (BC-2004-03418.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03418 INDEX CODE 106.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 7 May 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her 2003 Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded. On 8 Oct 03, the applicant was separated in the grade of airman basic with a BCD after three years, five months and five days of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9802541

    Original file (9802541.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02541 INDEX CODE 106.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 1960 Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable or, in the alternative, his first (honorable) enlistment be separated from his second enlistment so he can receive medical benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00303

    Original file (BC-2005-00303.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00303 INDEX CODE: A68.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 29 Jul 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The applicant, the son of the former servicemember who appears to be acting on behalf of his mother, requests that his father’s bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable; the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00709

    Original file (BC-2004-00709.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00709 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Because her approved sentence included a bad conduct discharge, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the applicant’s conviction and, on 31 October...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01530

    Original file (BC-2004-01530.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the 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 23 Jul 04 for review and comment within 30 days. Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 12 Jul 04. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jul 04.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-00310

    Original file (BC-2001-00310.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2001-00310 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded. The AFLSA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01861

    Original file (BC-2003-01861.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01861 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 15 December 1953, the Air Force Board of Review affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence. After reviewing all the evidence presented, we are not...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00960

    Original file (BC-2004-00960.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00960 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His court-martial conviction be overturned, his rank and retirement be restored, and his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to honorable. He did not live with his wife or provide support to her during the relevant time period. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00602

    Original file (BC-2004-00602.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    JAJM states there was no error or injustice related to the sentence. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 29 July 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member The following documentary evidence was considered in...

  • 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...