RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02929
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general (under
honorable conditions) or honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He believes his record to be unjust because most jobs and
government agencies have a requirement when hiring or assisting
people that they have an honorable discharge.
The applicant provides no documentation in support of his appeal.
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 July 2005.
In 2006, the applicant received a reduction in grade with
forfeiture of pay for assault.
The applicant was tried by a General Court-Martial and pled
guilty to the wrongful possession of 17 computer files containing
sexually explicit images of persons indistinguishable from minor
children, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ). The sentenced was adjudged on 26 September 2007.
He was sentenced to confinement for 20 months and a bad conduct
discharge but the period of confinement was reduced to nine
months.
The applicant was discharged on 12 June 2009 with a BCD. He
served 3 years, 3 months and 24 days on active duty. The period
26 September 2007 through 9 May 2008 was lost time.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states the applicant has not
identified any error or injustice related to his prosecution or
sentence. The applicant does not contest his guilt, nor does he
challenge his sentence. In fact, the applicant voluntarily pled
guilty and received a sentence within the limits of his pre-trial
agreement. The applicants assertion that he is prevented from
receiving certain jobs or assistance is simply a collateral and
natural- consequence of his conviction and sentence for serious
criminal conduct. The applicant provides no basis for the Board
to substitute its judgment for that rendered by the court and the
convening authority as to an appropriate sentence. A BCD was and
continues to be part of a proper sentence and properly
characterizes the applicants service.
Clemency in this case would be unfair to those individuals who
honorably served their country while in uniform. It would be
offensive to all those who served honorably to extend the same
benefits to someone who committed a crime such as the applicants
while on active duty. The applicant has shown no clear error or
injustice.
The JAJM complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 1 October 2010, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received no
response.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. After
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we find no evidence
to show that the applicants discharge as a result of his
conviction by court-martial was erroneous or unjust. In view of
the foregoing, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of
the Military Justice Division and adopt the rationale expressed
as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to
sustain his burden of proof of the existence of either an error
or an injustice. Therefore, based on the evidence of record, we
find no basis 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 an 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-2010-02929 in Executive Session on 23 February 2011,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2010-02929 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 July 2010.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 21 September 2010.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 October 2010.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01478
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: During his time in the service he performed his duties in an exceptional manner. The mere fact that the applicant continues to accept responsibility for his actions does not erase his past criminal conduct, does not make his BCD any less appropriate for the offenses he committed and certainly does not weigh in favor of Board action now to undo that part of the punishment. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03277
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03277 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded. The applicant does not provide any support for the idea that he has been rehabilitated since the time of his court-martial 23 years ago. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we find no...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03229
JAJM states that upgrading the applicants BCD is not appropriate and recommends the Board deny the request as untimely or on the merits. It also indicates that a bad conduct discharge is more than merely a service characterization; it is a punishment for the crimes the applicant committed while a member of the armed forces. While JAJM states that a BCD is for bad conduct and more than merely a service characterization, all his charges stemmed from one incident.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02381
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. In response, the applicant provides an expanded statement and copies of seven letters in support of his request (Exhibit G).
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04198
On 9 November 1993, the applicants BCD was ordered to be executed and the applicant was discharged with a BCD on 10 November 1993. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 April 2011 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). We have considered the applicant's overall quality of service, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 04126
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-04126 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded. On 16 March 2010, the Board staff requested the applicant provide documentation pertaining to his post-service activities, within 30 days (Exhibit E). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | bC-2013-00497
He notified the business of his mistake, and was told they would hold the check until the next morning, however, the manager filed bad check charges against him before he could make the deposit. On 21 Sep 92, the applicant applied for a review of his BCD to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05280
At his court-martial, the applicant pled guilty to all charges and specifications. We have considered the applicant's overall quality of service, the court-martial conviction which precipitated the discharge, the seriousness of the offenses to which convicted, and the absence of any documentation pertaining to his post-service activities. Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02290
On 10 January 1990, the United States Air Force Court of Military Review affirmed the applicant’s court-martial conviction. 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 and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01288
However, he states he has more than paid the price for being naïve. JAJM indicates that under Title 10, United States Code (USC), Section 1552(f), which amended the basic corrections board legislation, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) ability to correct records related to courts- martial, is limited. The applicant pled not guilty to the offense and was able to have an impartial military judge decide whether the evidence showed, beyond a reasonable doubt,...