RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00440 

 INDEX CODE: 110.02 

 

 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His BCD was inequitable because it was based on an isolated 
incident in 95 months of exemplary service. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant was discharged by General Court-Martial Order #11, 
on 24 Sep 93, with a reason for separation of conviction by 
court-martial (other than desertion), with service characterized 
as bad conduct. He was credited with 8 years, 7 months, and 
22 days of active duty service (excluding lost time from 
13 Jul through 27 Sep 92 due to confinement). 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, 
extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained 
in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air 
Force. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial, stating, in part, that upgrading 
the applicant’s BCD is not appropriate. 

 


The applicant does not claim he is innocent of the charge 
against him nor does he claim any procedural fault with the 
court. The record shows he was afforded all of the procedural 
rights offered by the court-martial and appellate process. The 
applicant pled not guilty to wrongful use of cocaine and was 
able to have a panel of officer members decide whether the 
evidence showed, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he had 
committed the offense. The members heard testimony from 
numerous witnesses and were given all the information regarding 
the urinalysis test. They heard about the procedures used and 
the results of the test. The members were able to weigh that 
information against the evidence presented by the defense, 
including the defense’s theory of the possibility of unknowing 
ingestion. The members were able to evaluate that evidence and 
found the applicant guilty of the charge and specification. 

 

During the pre-sentencing phase of the trial, the members heard 
evidence in aggravation, as well as extenuating or mitigating 
evidence from the applicant. The applicant provided an unsworn 
statement in which he asked the members to take into account his 
exceptional military record and allow him to continue to serve 
in the Air Force. The members evaluated the evidence and 
determined that the appropriate punishment for the offense 
committed by the applicant was a BCD, three months confinement, 
forfeiture of $400.00 pay per month for three months, and 
reduction to airman basic. After the trial, the applicant had 
the chance to present a request for clemency to the convening 
authority before final action on the case. Since the applicant 
received a punitive discharge, his case was automatically 
referred to the Air Force Court of Military Review. An 
appellate defense counsel was appointed to represent him. After 
the Air Force Court affirmed the finding and sentence, the 
applicant had the chance to petition the United States Court of 
Military Appeals. There is no evidence of effort or injustice 
in the process of the applicant’s court-martial or appeal. 

 

While clemency may be granted, the applicant has not provided 
any justification for his request, and clemency is not 
warranted. His submission does not include a letter or document 
to show rehabilitation since the time of his court-martial. He 
claims 95 months of exemplary service as the reason to grant 
clemency; however, the Record of Trial of the applicant’s court-
martial includes copies of three Records of Individual 
Counseling (RICs) and five Letters of Reprimand (LORs) issued to 
the applicant from about April 1990 to April 1991 for various 
offenses. 

 

The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 4 Jun 10 for review and comment within 30 days. As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit D). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case. The evidence of record reflects the applicant was 
convicted by general court-martial for one specification of 
wrongful use of cocaine resulting in a bad conduct discharge. 
No evidence has been presented which would lead us to believe 
that the applicant’s service characterization was improper. We 
note the lack of post service documentation and in view of the 
seriousness of the offense committed during the period of 
service under review; we are not persuaded that an upgrade of 
the characterization of his discharge is warranted on the basis 
of clemency. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the 
relief sought in this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-00440 in Executive Session on 21 September 2010, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jan 10. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 7 Apr 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 10. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair