RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01575 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable 
discharge. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Her court-martial and BCD were harsh for the offense committed 
considering her peers received administrative discharges for 
offenses such as selling/using drugs, driving under the influence 
(DUI), or driving while impaired (DWI). Prior to this incident, 
she was a model airman. Her accomplishments while on active duty 
were not mentioned or considered during her court-martial. Her 
accomplishments outweighed her misconduct. 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of 
documents extracted from her military personnel records, three 
character references, and two certificates. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 28 January 2003, the applicant contracted her enlistment in 
the Regular Air Force. 

 

The applicant was accused of breaking into another service 
member’s room and stealing money between March and April 2005. 
She was charged with one specification of larceny and 
housebreaking. On 17 August 2005, she was tried by special 
court-martial and pled guilty to the charges and specifications 
pursuant to a pretrial agreement. The military judge did an 
inquiry of the guilty pleas and found them provident and entered 
a finding of guilty for both charges and specifications. During 
her unsworn statement, the applicant indicated she intended to 
return the money she stole. The military judge did an inquiry of 
the lesser included offense – wrongful appropriation rather than 
larceny and found her guilty of housebreaking, not guilty of 


larceny, and guilty of wrongful appropriation. She was sentenced 
to a BCD, confinement for six months, and reduction to the grade 
of airman basic. 

 

On 11 October 2005, the convening authority approved the sentence 
as related to the BCD, confinement, and reduction in rank. On 
14 August 2006, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed 
the findings and sentence. The applicant appealed to the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for review of her 
conviction. On 4 December 2006, the court denied the appeal, 
therefore making the findings and sentence final. Her BCD was 
executed on 26 January 2007. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) provided a report indicating they were unable 
to locate an arrest report based on the information provided. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial noting a review of the record of 
trial shows no error in the processing of the court-martial, to 
include the issues raised by the applicant. Prior to trial, the 
applicant indicated she would plead guilty to the charges and 
specifications in exchange for confinement not to exceed five 
months if a BCD was adjudged, or confinement not to exceed seven 
months if a BCD was not adjudged. She plead guilty as agreed to 
in the pretrial agreement and the judge did two inquiries of her 
plea to ensure she understood the meaning and effect of her pleas 
and the maximum punishment she could receive if her guilty plea 
was accepted by the court. In addition, on both occasions, the 
judge explained the elements and definitions of the offense and 
the applicant expressed why she believed she was guilty. 

 

After accepting the applicant’s guilty plea, the court received 
evidence in aggravation, as well as in extenuation and 
mitigation, prior to crafting an appropriate sentence for the 
crimes committed. The applicant also gave an unsworn statement 
and her counsel submitted two character statements on her behalf 
in support of leniency. The judge considered these factors when 
imposing the sentence. The imposed sentence was below the 
maximum possible of a BCD, one year confinement, forfeiture of 
two-thirds pay per month for 12 months, and reduction in rank to 
airman basic. Additionally, she received a favorable cap on 
punishment in her pretrial agreement. 

 

As for the applicant’s contention that her personal 
accomplishments were not considered during her trial and in her 
request for clemency, a review of the Record of Trial indicates 
that this was a decision she and her counsel made at the time. 
She had multiple opportunities, to include her unsworn statement, 
to bring up her accomplishments, but chose not do so. The 
applicant also could have submitted the information as defense 


exhibits for consideration by the judge before sentencing or in 
conjunction with her clemency submission. 

 

While clemency may be granted, the applicant provided very little 
justification in support of her request. A BCD is designed as a 
punishment for bad conduct. The BCD is more than a service 
characterization; it is a punishment for the crimes she committed 
while on active duty. Her sentence to a BCD, reduction in rank, 
and confinement was well within the legal limits and was an 
appropriate punishment for the offenses committed. 

 

Additionally, to grant 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 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 
sentence of 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 AFLOA/JAJM complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 24 June 11, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this 
date, no response has been received by this office. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an 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 find no evidence which indicates the applicant’s service 
characterization, which had its basis in his court-martial 


conviction 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 court-martial 
conviction which precipitated the discharge, the seriousness of 
the offenses to which convicted, and the documentation pertaining 
to the applicant’s post-service activities. Based on the 
evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted 
in this case. Therefore, we find no basis upon which to 
favorably consider 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-2011-01575 in Executive Session on 10 Jan 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Apr 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Military Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 28 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Jul 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair