RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02381 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The type of discharge he received was unjust. The reason he went 
absent without leave (AWOL) was due to his responsibility to his 
wife and new born daughter. His wife had no support system to 
assist her during the birth of his daughter. She was alone and 
unable to cope with the new level of commitment required for 
motherhood. He felt he had no choice but to choose the well being 
of his wife and daughter. After 54 years, he regrets the 
consequences of his decision. He is now 81 years old and is at 
the end of his life; however, he enjoyed his 8 years of active 
duty. 

 

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 2 April 1948 and was 
progressively promoted to the rank of staff sergeant. 

 

On 9 July 1955, he absented himself from his unit without 
authority and remained absent without authority until he was 
apprehended by an FBI agent on 9 December 1955. On 22 December 
1955, he was tried at a special court-martial, at March Air Force 
Base, California. He was charged with being AWOL, in violation 
of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He pled 
guilty to the charge and was sentenced to a BCD, confinement for 
six months, forfeiture of $44 pay per month for six months. On 
9 January 1956, the convening authority approved the findings and 
sentence as adjudged. On 24 January 1956, an Air Force Board of 
Review found the findings and sentence correct in law and fact. 
The applicant waived his right to petition the U.S. Court of 
Military Appeals to review his case, making the findings and 
sentence in his case final and conclusive under the UCMJ. The 


sentence was affirmed and he was discharged with a BCD on 4 April 
1956. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) provided a copy of an Investigative Report, 
which is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM reviewed this application and recommends denial based 
on the application being untimely and without merit. 

 

JAJM states the applicant has identified no error or injustice 
related to his prosecution or the sentence. He pled guilty at 
trial to the offense and specification. The court members were 
presented with evidence that the applicant had been previously 
convicted at a summary court-martial for being AWOL for a week in 
1954. The applicant waived his right to testify. 

 

While clemency may be granted under Title 10, USC, Section 
1552(f)(2), the applicant provides no justification for his 
request, and clemency is not warranted in this case. Rule for 
Court-Marital 1003(b)(8)(C) states that a BCD is designed as 
punishment for bad conduct. It also indicates that a BCD is more 
than merely a service characterization; it is a punishment for 
crimes the applicant committed while a member of the armed 
forces. His sentence to a BCD, confinement for six months was 
within the legal limits and was an appropriate punishment for the 
offense committed. 

 

Additionally, clemency in this case would be unfair to those 
individuals who honorably served their country while in uniform. 
Congress’ intent in setting up the Veterans’ Benefit Program was 
to express thanks to veterans’ personal sacrifices, separations 
from family, facing hostile enemy action and suffering financial 
hardships. All rights of a veteran under the laws administered 
by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs are barred where the veteran 
was discharged or dismissed by reason of the sentence of a 
general court-martial. 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 JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 22 October 2010, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was 
forwarded to applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit E). 

 

On 14 December 2010, a copy of the FBI Report of Investigation 
and a request for post-service information was forwarded to 
applicant for review and comment within 30 days. In response, 
the applicant provides an expanded statement and copies of seven 
letters in support of his request (Exhibit G). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 applicant’s 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., being absent without authority (AWOL). Based on 
the evidence of record, and in view of the contents of the FBI 
Investigation Record we are not persuaded that the 
characterization of the applicant’s 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. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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-2010-02381 in Executive Session on 30 March 2011, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Jul 10, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. FBI Report of Investigation. 

 Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 21 Sep 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Oct 10. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Dec 10. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair