RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04198 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general 
discharge. 

 

2. His reentry (RE) code of 2B, which denotes, “separated with a 
general or under-other-than-honorable conditions (UOTHC) 
discharge” be changed. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. He needs his BCD upgraded in order to continue to support his 
family. 

 

2. His BCD was unjust because the punishment was too severe for 
the infraction. 

 

3. His legal aid was remiss in her duties and showed little or 
no interest in his case; was “clearly on the side of the 
military”; and failed to contest or debate his position. 

 

4. He was coerced to plead guilty by his appointed legal aid in 
order to “expedite the process” and the military did not conduct 
a follow-up urinalysis or retest the same day sample to check 
for “false positive readings.” 

 

5. There are two court cases with similar circumstances to his 
case, in which those accused have been allowed to work for the 
government or returned to military duty. 

 

6. He personally knows of a case involving a technical sergeant 
who had three positive urinalysis tests for marijuana, but was 
allowed to reenlist and eventually retire from the service. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, a personal statement, letters of support and certificates 
of appreciation. 

 

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

 


_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 17 June 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air 
Force. 

 

In June 1992, the applicant was accused of wrongful use of a 
controlled substance. 

 

On 30 November 1992, the applicant was tried by a Special Court-
Martial and pled guilty to the wrongful use of a controlled 
substance, in violation of Article 112a, of the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ). The applicant pled guilty and was 
sentenced to a BCD, confinement for 15 days and reduction to the 
grade of senior airman. On 6 January 1993, the convening 
authority approved the findings and sentence as adjudged. 

 

On 27 May 1993, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed 
the findings and sentence in the applicant’s case. On 
1 September 1993, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Armed Forces denied the applicant’s petition for review, making 
the case final and conclusive under the UCMJ. On 22 October 
2003, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the 
applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge to general. 

 

On 9 November 1993, the applicant’s BCD was ordered to be 
executed and the applicant was discharged with a BCD on 
10 November 1993. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of his request to upgrade his 
discharge to general. JAJM states the applicant has alleged an 
error in his court-martial in identifying his “legal aid” as 
having little or no interest in his case and that he “was 
coerced” to plead guilty because “the appointed legal aid” 
wanted to expedite the process. JAJM was not able to examine the 
record of trial in the applicant’s case. However, in addressing 
the applicant’s allegations of error and injustice, JAJM 
reviewed the documents provided by the applicant and the limited 
information in the Air Force Automated Military Justice Analysis 
and Management System (AMJAMS). 

 

Based on the applicant’s submission and the information included 
in the AMJAMS, there is no apparent error or injustice in how 
the court-martial was conducted. In addition, the applicant pled 
guilty at trial to the charge and specification. 

 

Implicit in the application is a request from the applicant for 
clemency because of the injustice he perceives in his case. 
While clemency may be granted under 10 U.S.C. 1552(f)(2), the 


applicant’s submission does not provide enough support for 
action by the Board. The applicant’s case for clemency relies on 
mostly outdated letters of support and certificates of 
appreciation. The sentence to a BCD, 15 days confinement and 
reduction to the grade of senior airman was within the legal 
limits and was appropriate for the applicant’s offense. To 
overturn this punishment now would require the Board to 
substitute its judgment for that rendered by the court and the 
convening authority almost 20 years ago when the facts and 
circumstances were fresh. 

 

Granting clemency in this case would be unfair to those 
individuals who honorably served their country while in uniform. 
Congress’ intent in setting up the Veteran’s Benefits program 
was to express thanks for 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. This makes sense if 
the benefit program is to have any real value. 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 
while on active duty. 

 

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of his request to change RE 
code. DPSOA states the applicant was involuntarily discharged 
with a narrative reason for separation of court-martial on 
10 November 1993. RE code 2B is used for all discharges with an 
UOTHC or less character of service to include those classified 
as BCD. The applicant’s RE code of 2B is required per AFI 36-
2606, Reenlistments in the United States Air Force, chapter 
3, based on his involuntary discharge with a BCD character of 
service. 

 

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). As of this date, this office has not received a 
response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 that 
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 also 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 offense 
to which convicted, and having found no error or injustice with 
regard to the actions that occurred while the applicant was a 
military member, we conclude that no basis exists to upgrade his 
discharge or change his RE code. In addition, based on the 
evidence of record, we are not persuaded the characterization of 
the applicant’s discharge warrants an upgrade to general on the 
basis of clemency. Therefore, based on the available evidence 
of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider 
this application. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2010-04198 in Executive Session on 24 May 2011, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

 

 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-04198 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Oct 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. FBI Report, dated 4 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit D. AFLOA/JAJM, Letter, dated 16 Feb 11. 

 Exhibit E. AFPC/DPSOA, Letter, dated 25 Feb 11. 

 Exhibit F. SAF/MRBR, Letter, dated 1 Apr 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair