RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01858 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. He would like to clear his name in the event he can serve his 
country again. 

 

2. The “war on drugs” had a strong bearing on the severity of 
his punishment. 

 

3. He made some bad choices, learned some valuable lessons the 
hard way and has never gone down the same road again. His 
character references reflecting 20 years of employment at a 
major utility company can speak for the change in his life. 
Also, his 20 year career in the utility field would be a 
valuable asset to the U.S. Armed Forces. 

 

4. He is a patriot proud to be an American and still would as he 
did in 1983; take an oath to defend our country to the extent of 
his mortality. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a letter of 
support. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 14 Dec 83, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 

 

On 10 Nov 94, the applicant was tried by a General Court-Martial 
for three specifications of wrongful use of cocaine, one 


specification of wrongful use of marijuana, one specification of 
wrongful use of methamphetamine, one specification of wrongful 
possession of methamphetamine and one specification of wrongful 
possession of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) all in violation 
of Article 112a, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 
Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, the applicant pled guilty to 
the charge and specifications and was sentenced to a BCD, 
confinement for three years, forfeiture of all pay and 
allowances and reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-1). On 
21 Dec 85, the convening authority approved only so much of the 
sentence as called for a BCD, 24 months confinement, forfeiture 
of all pay and allowances and reduction to the grade of E-1. 

 

On 18 Feb 86, the Air Force Court of Military Review affirmed 
the findings and sentence. 

 

On 16 May 86, the United States Court of Military Appeals denied 
the applicant’s petition for review, making the case final and 
conclusive under the UCMJ. 

 

On 17 Jun 86, the applicant’s BCD was ordered to be executed and 
the applicant was discharged with a BCD on 28 Nov 86. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states the applicant has 
identified no error or injustice related to his prosecution or 
the sentence. An examination of the record of trial shows no 
error in the processing of the court-martial. The applicant 
agreed to plead guilty to the charge and specifications, in 
exchange for which the convening authority agreed not to approve 
a sentence that exceeded a BCD, 24 months confinement, 
forfeiture of all pay and allowances for the period of 
confinement approved and reduction to the grade of E-1. Prior 
to accepting his guilty plea, as evidenced by the record of 
trial, the military judge ensured the applicant understood the 
meaning and effect of his plea and the maximum punishment that 
could be imposed if his guilty plea was accepted by the court. 
The military judge explained the elements and definitions of the 
offenses to which the applicant pled guilty, and the applicant 
explained in his own words why he believed he was guilty. 

 

On the court’s acceptance of the applicant’s guilty plea, it 
received evidence in aggravation, as well as in extenuation and 
mitigation, prior to crafting an appropriate sentence for the 
crimes committed. The applicant made an unsworn statement in 
his own behalf and the defense also introduced some letters of 
support asking for clemency for the applicant. The military 
judge took all of these factors into consideration when imposing 
the applicant’s sentence. The imposed sentence was below the 
maximum possible sentence of a dishonorable discharge, 
confinement for 34 years, total forfeiture of all pay and 


allowances, and reduction to the grade of E-1. Additionally, 
the applicant got the benefit of a favorable cap on punishment 
in his pretrial agreement, as the military judge imposed three 
years confinement, but the convening authority only approved 
24 months confinement. 

 

While clemency may be granted under 10 U.S.C 1552(f)(2), the 
applicant provides little justification for his request, and 
clemency is not warranted in this case. The applicant’s 
assertion of his good and faithful service as an employee at a 
utility, National Grid, provides scant support for action by the 
Board in light of the seriousness of his offenses. Rules for 
Court-Martial 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 punishment 
for the crimes the applicant committed while a member of the 
armed forces. The applicant’s sentence to a BCD and confinement 
for 24 months was well within the legal limit and was 
appropriate punishment for the offenses committed. 

 

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 C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 29 Jul 11 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D). 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, USC, 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 
general 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 UCMJ. We have considered the applicant's 
overall quality of service, the general 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. 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-
2010-01858 in Executive Session on 22 Sep 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-01858 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 and 26 Apr 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. AFLOA/JAJM, Letter, dated 18 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit D. SAF/MRBR, Letter, dated 29 Jul 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair