RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03750
INDEX CODE: 110.02
XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 4 JUL 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His dishonorable discharge be upgraded and the felony conviction he
received at a court-martial in 1994 be removed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He has paid for his mistakes, wants to move on with his life, and
provide for his family with a better job.
In support of his application the applicant provided a personal
statement, excerpts from his military personnel records, a copy of his
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, a
Letter of Support, and documentation relative to the support of his
family.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on
23 June 1983, for a term of 4 years. On 12 December 1994, General
Court-Martial charges were preferred against him. The bases for the
commander’s recommendation were that on or about 30 May 1994, and on
or about 15 June 1994, with intent to defraud and for the procurement
of lawful currency of a thing of value, wrongfully and unlawfully make
and utter two checks in the sum total of $780.00; on or about 31 July
1994, with intent to defraud and for the procurement of lawful
currency of a thing of value, wrongfully and unlawfully make and utter
one check in the sum total of $300.00 and on or about 29 July 1994,
with intent to deceive and for the payment of past due obligations,
wrongfully and unlawfully make and utter one check in the total sum of
$1,132.00. He was found not guilty of several specifications. He
pleaded not guilty but was found guilty of seven specifications of
writing checks without sufficient funds, four specifications of
dishonorable failure to maintain sufficient funds, one specification
for falsely making the signature of a master sergeant, two
specifications of violating the Joint Ethics Regulations by accepting
a gift from an employee receiving less money, and one specification of
misuse of a government credit card. Applicant was sentenced to a
dishonorable discharge, confinement for 18 months, and reduction to
airman first class. He served 13 years, 10 months and 13 days on
active duty.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an Investigation Report, which is
at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states the applicant’s contentions
are untimely, without merit, and constitute neither error nor
injustice. Under 10 USC 1552(f), which amended the basic corrections
board legislation, the Board’s ability to correct records related to
courts-martial, is limited. Specifically, section 15552(f)(1) permits
the correction of a record to reflect actions taken by a reviewing
authority under the UCMJ. Additionally, section 1552(f)(2) permits
the correction of records related to action on the sentence of a court-
martial for the purpose of clemency. Apart from these two limited
exceptions, the effect of Section 1552(f) is that the Board is without
authority to reverse, set aside or otherwise expunge a court-martial
conviction that occurred on or after 5 May 1950 (the effective date of
the UCMJ). Accordingly, the Board does not have the authority to
grant the applicant’s request to remove his general court-martial
conviction from his records.
In regard to the applicant’s sentence, a dishonorable discharge,
confinement for 18 months, and reduction to airman first class was
well within the legal limits and was an appropriate punishment for the
offenses committed. At the time of his sentencing hearing, the
applicant had amassed several documented prior instances of misconduct
to include two Article 15 actions for assaulting his wife by striking
her in the face on one occasion and punching her in the face on a
different occasion, being disorderly, and communicating indecent
language to an NCO. While clemency may be granted under 10 USC
1552(f)(2), it is not warranted in this case.
The passage of time and the applicant’s desire to obtain a better
paying job do not excuse or mitigate his serious crimes, while serving
in the military. A dishonorable discharge was a proper sentence and
properly characterizes his service. The application is untimely and
there is no basis for clemency.
The JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
23 February 2007, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, this office has received no response.
A copy of the FBI Report was provided for review and response within
14 days and to date no response has been received. (Exhibit F)
_________________________________________________________________
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. We also find no evidence which
indicates the applicant’s service characterization, which had its
basis in his conviction by general court-martial and was a part of the
sentence of the military court, was improper or that it exceeded the
limitations set forth in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
We note that this Board is without authority to reverse, set aside, or
otherwise expunge a court-martial conviction. Rather, in accordance
with Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552(f), actions by this
Board are limited to corrections to the record to reflect actions
taken by the reviewing officials and action on the sentence of the
court-martial for the purpose of clemency. We have considered the
applicant’s overall quality of service, the events which precipitated
the discharge, and the evidence related to his post-service activities
and accomplishments. On balance, we do not find it appropriate to
upgrade his dishonorable discharge based on clemency. Therefore,
based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which
to favorably consider this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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-2006-
03750 in Executive Session on 24 May 2007, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Ms. B.J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member
Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Nov 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Response, dated 27 Mar 07.
Exhibit D. Memo, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 8 Feb 07.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Feb 07.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Mar 07, w/atch.
B.J. WHITE-OLSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05158
He simply requests an upgrade to his BCD based on the circumstances at the time he was court-martialed along with the positive progress he has made since his discharge. As of this date, this office has not received a response. We find no evidence which indicates the applicants service characterization, which had its basis in his court-martial and was a part of the sentence of the military court, was improper or that it exceeded the limitations set forth in the Uniform Code of Military...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-02191
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. We find no evidence which indicates the applicant’s service characterization, which had its basis in his court-martial conviction and was a part of the sentence of the military court, was improper or that it exceeded the limitations set forth in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-00960
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00960 INDEX CODE: A68.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Applicant’s request is not clear; however, it appears she is requesting that her bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded and/or be changed to a medical discharge or retirement. She was convicted of the remaining specifications, but...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02737
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: During the course of her imprisonment, she completed all the Air Force requirements to include serving her prison and parole time. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged and the Air Force Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and the sentences as appropriate. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit...
Records reflect she continued to receive medical treatment while in confinement. Applicant's petition suggests that Air Force authorities were indifferent to her medical condition prior to her dismissal, but her medical records support a contrary finding. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states, in her response to the Air Force evaluations, that the facts of military justice action omitted a very important...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02720
Instead he makes a broad assertion that because no member detailed to his court-martial was African-American, the convening authority improperly excluded African- Americans from consideration as members. Clearly, given the overwhelming evidence adduced at trial (including video of the applicant in the bank making a fraudulent transaction) and the applicant’s post-trial admission of guilt, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the absence of African-American court members was...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03412
Based upon the documentation in the applicant's file, they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F). After thoroughly reviewing the evidence or record, we find no evidence to show that the applicant’s discharge was erroneous or unjust.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00082
He received a BCD after trying to get the Air Force to help him with an addiction. However, he was not provided the proper treatment for an opiate addiction and shortly after asking for and not receiving the proper help began writing prescriptions for Oxycodone. The applicant was able to relate in his unsworn statement his contention that he self-referred for help with his addiction and that the Air Force did not give him proper treatment.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2005-02137
On 20 Aug 07, counsel filed an addendum, with additional documents, to the applicant’s 5 Jun 05 request for relief to the Board (Exhibit C). The appellate courts found his conviction and sentence correct in fact and law. 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 office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant...