RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02664
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general (under
honorable conditions) and his narrative reason for separation be
changed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His punishment was too harsh for his first offense and his
defense counsel was ineffective. His BCD has limited his post-
military employment opportunities, including his ability to
reenlist in other military services. He made a bad decision in
stealing the televisions, but he did so in order to get enough
money to visit his hospitalized mother.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of a
Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) statement in support of his
claim; his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty; a request for clemency; and a request for voluntary
entry into the Return to Duty Program (RTDP).
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who
entered active duty on 3 February 2004 in the grade of airman
basic (E-1) and was promoted to the grade of airman first class
(E-3) effective 6 August 2004.
On 11 July 2005, the applicant was tried at a special court-
martial for larceny of military property, in violation of Article
121, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for stealing six
television sets from base lodging and selling them to a pawnshop.
The applicant pled guilty to the charge and specification and was
sentenced to a BCD, confinement for five months, and reduction to
the grade of airman basic. On 8 September 2005, the convening
authority approved the findings and sentence as adjudged but
directed that any mandatory forfeitures of pay be made to the
applicants wife. On 16 June 2006, the Air Force Court of
Criminal Appeals found the findings and sentence correct in law
and fact. On 27 September 2006, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Armed Forces declined to review the applicants
case, making his conviction and sentence final under the UCMJ.
The applicant was discharged effective 29 November 2006 with a
BCD and a narrative reason for separation of Court-Martial
(Other). He served two years, ten months, and nine days on
active duty.
On 16 July 2009, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB)
considered and denied the applicants request to upgrade his
discharge, to change the reason and authority for discharge, and
to change his reenlistment eligibility code.
_________________________________________________________________
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 note 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 find no
evidence which indicates the applicants service
characterization, which had its basis in his conviction by
special 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
have considered the applicant's overall quality of service, the
special court-martial conviction which precipitated the
discharge, and the seriousness of the offenses of which
convicted, e.g., larceny of government property. Based on the
evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the
characterization of his discharge warrants an upgrade to general
on the basis of clemency. In view of the above, we conclude that
no basis exists to grant favorable action on his request
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 issues 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 AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2010-02664 in Executive Session on 7 April 2011, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02664:
Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 6 Oct 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03874
Even the military review board deemed his punitive discharge to be a Heavy Price To Pay. While the appellate court was saddened that a fine military career was terminated by a punitive discharge, the sentence as approved by the convening authority was appropriate for the offenses of which the applicant stood convicted. While the applicant received a severe punishment, when he otherwise served honorably for 20 years, the commander, convening authority and appellate courts were in position...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2009-03787
A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 8 Dec 10 for review and comment, within 30 days. We have carefully reviewed the applicant’s submission and the evidence of record and do not fine a sufficient basis to excuse the untimely filing of this application. The applicant did not file within three...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010082
The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions discharge. He was sentenced to confinement for 22 months and to be discharged from the service with a BCD. The conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02113
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02113 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 JAN 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) discharge be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 17 August 1977, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018981
The applicant requests his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to under honorable conditions (general). Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02246
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02246 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 19 JAN 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) or an honorable discharge. However, she was found guilty of stealing the items and did not state,...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02851
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02851 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 MAR 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a more favorable characterization of discharge. Specifically, section 15552(f)(1) permits the correction of a record to reflect actions taken by a...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01575
The military judge did an inquiry of the guilty pleas and found them provident and entered a finding of guilty for both charges and specifications. As for the applicants contention that her personal accomplishments were not considered during her trial and in her request for clemency, a review of the Record of Trial indicates that this was a decision she and her counsel made at the time. We find no evidence which indicates the applicants service characterization, which had its basis in...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-02912
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS On 7 Nov 75, the United States Court of Military Appeals declined to review the applicant’s case, making the findings and sentence final and conclusive under the UCMJ. 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...
The applicant provided extensive sworn testimony during the sentencing portion of his trial and the court members were fully aware of his condition. AFBCMR 94-03455 Applicant's record of trial has been thoroughly reviewed. AFBCMR 94-03455 applicant was appropriately found ineligible for processing through the Air Force disability evaluation system in accordance with AFRs 35-4 and 160-43.