RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00873 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His bad conduct discharge be upgraded. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The evidence in his case was overturned in another’s case due to 
problems with the civilian testing facility and its practices. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of the U.S. v. Steen court opinion. 

 

The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 11 Apr 96. He is 
credited with 9 years, 11 months, and 21 days of active service. 

 

The applicant was seen ingesting an Ecstasy pill and smoking 
marijuana. After being advised of his rights, he pled guilty to 
ingesting one Ecstasy pill. He was eventually charged with two 
specifications of using controlled substances. 

 

In January 2002, the applicant, then a senior airman, was tried 
and found guilty by a general court-martial for wrongfully using 
controlled substances. He was sentenced to a bad conduct 
discharge, hard labor without confinement for 60 days, reduction 
to the grade of airman, and forfeitures of all pay and 
allowances. 

 

A request for post-service information was sent to the applicant 
on 8 July 2010 (Exhibit F). As of this date, no response has 
been received. 

 


 

Other relevant facts are contained in the AFLOA/JAJM opinion, 
which is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states clemency is 
unwarranted in this case as the applicant has not identified an 
error or injustice related to his prosecution or sentence. 
Further, U.S. v. Steen does not apply to the applicant. In Steen, the Government’s case rested primarily on the results of 
hair testing performed by a civilian forensics laboratory. 
Before trial, the individual’s defense counsel asked the 
Government to provide the “results of any and all quality checks 
and certifications done regarding the lab.” The Government 
failed to submit a report from a 1999 investigation that found 
the lab lacking in several critical areas. Based on this error, 
the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals overturned the 
individual’s conviction and ordered a new trial. The 
applicant’s case differs significantly, as the Government’s case 
against him consisted solely on his confession and the 
eyewitness account of his misconduct. In fact, in the 
applicant’s trial, the Government did not present the results of 
any drug testing. 

 

Further, it would be offensive to all those who served honorably 
to extend the same benefits to someone who committed a crime 
such as the applicant’s while on active duty. 

 

The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant states he is not a troublemaker and had never been 
in trouble before the incident nor has he been in trouble with 
the law since his discharge. 

 

He states he was intimidated and panicked when he was stuck in a 
little room with two officers and accused of criminal activity. 
Additionally, he was told he would not be able to leave until he 
admitted to doing wrong and further, they knew he had smoked 
marijuana. He states it never happened and he did not know what 
to do. He was told if he gave a statement things would go 
easier for him; therefore, he did exactly that. 

 

The AFLOA/JAJM opinion is wrong with regard to his admission of 
smoking marijuana within the charged timeframe. He states his 
statement was from a year prior. The dates for which he was 
charged were for dates given by another airman who claimed he 


had seen all the drug activity against a number of airmen. That 
individual’s testimony only held up against him and Steen; 
however, Steen’s was overturned. 

 

With regard to his ecstasy charge, he pled guilty at the advice 
of his counsel. His counsel told him to throw himself on the 
mercy of the court or go to jail. The applicant states he had 
affairs to handle which could not be taken care of if he were 
away for a year or more in prison. 

 

He states he is now a professional, married with two children, 
and the discharge is affecting his life. He is currently 
unemployed and unable to secure a number of jobs because they 
require clearances. He desires an upgrade of his discharge in 
order to be a provider for his family. 

 

The applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. While the 
applicant states his testimony was forced, he had a clean 
urinalysis, and he pled guilty to the use of Ecstasy at the 
advice of his counsel, evidence of this was not provided. 
Further, we note the applicant’s case differs from U.S. v. Steen 
and; therefore, agree with the opinion and recommendation of the 
Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

 

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 Docket Number 
BC-2010-00873 in Executive Session on 24 August 2010, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 10, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 17 May 10. 

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

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Jun 10. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Jul 10, w/atch. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair