RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01976 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was told by the Airman’s Advocacy Group that if he proceeded 
with the recommended court martial process he would be eligible 
for an upgrade in a few years following his discharge if his 
discharge caused a hardship. 

 

His BCD is causing a hardship on his professional career and is 
affecting his family’s quality of living. 

 

For the past five years he has worked with a private aerospace 
company. He started as a general support mechanic, and shortly 
after earning his Bachelor’s Degree in Professional Aeronautics, 
he was promoted to a program business analyst. Through 
continuing education and career development, he is currently a 
program business manager. He has also earned a Master’s Degree 
in Business Administration. 

 

He has been granted a Department of Defense (DoD) secret 
clearance but because of his discharge category, he has not been 
able to work certain programs. The company he works for is an 
aerospace company, and the nature of work available that does not 
require an acceptable clearance is extremely limited. Given his 
security clearance level and the fact he cannot work certain 
programs, he has been informed his position and employment are at 
risk. His company has invested thousands of dollars into his 
employment and the DoD investigation, as they see him as a 
valuable asset to their company. Given the time he has invested 
in his career, and the state of the economy, a career/company 
change would place his family in a desperate position. 

 

In the seven years following his discharge, he has lived a life 
of forward momentum with no problems or issues. He has worked to 
rebuild his life and this hard work has been recognized by all 
that have vested interest in his success and the contribution he 
provided to them. His only hindrance is the category of his 
discharge. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge 


from the Armed Forces of the United States, his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, copies of 
his undergraduate and graduate transcripts and diplomas, and 
several reference letters. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 17 Feb 99 and was 
progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman. 

 

On 5 Feb 02, he was tried by general court-martial for using 
methamphetamine six separate times between Nov 99 and Aug 01. He 
was eventually charged with one specification of wrongful use of 
a controlled substance, on divers occasions, in violation of 
Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Pursuant 
to a pretrial agreement, the applicant pled guilty to the charge 
and specification and was sentenced by a military judge to a bad 
conduct discharge, confinement for 10 months, forfeiture of all 
pay and allowances and reduction to (E-1) airman basic. On 9 Jul 
02, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence 
as called for a bad conduct discharge, seven months confinement, 
forfeiture of all pay and allowances and reduction to E-1. The 
Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and 
sentence on 17 Jan 03. The applicant petitioned the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for review of his 
conviction, but it was denied on 16 May 03, making the finding 
and sentence in his case final and conclusive under the UCMJ. 

 

On 17 Aug 03, the applicant was discharged with a BCD. He was 
credited with 4 years, 4 months, and 25 days of active military 
service. 

 

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. 

 

On 9 Aug 11, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the 
applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM 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. An examination of 
the record of trial shows no error in the processing of the 
court-martial. Prior to trial, the applicant entered into a 
pretrial agreement. This agreement specified that the applicant 


agreed to plead guilty to the charge and specification, in 
exchange for which the convening authority agreed not to approve 
confinement in excess of nine months and if a dishonorable 
discharge was adjudged, to approve no discharge more severe than 
a BCD. The applicant pled guilty at trial to the charge and 
specification as was agreed to in the pretrial agreement. 

 

Clemency may be granted under Title 10, United States Code (USC), 
1552(f)(2); however, such clemency is not appropriate in this 
case. The applicant’s drug use was not a one-time use, but 
consisted of six separate occasions over the course of about 
21 months. 

 

A BCD is designed as punishment for bad-conduct. A BCD is more 
than merely a service characterization; it is a punishment for 
the crimes the applicant committed while a member of the armed 
forces. The applicant’s approved sentence to a BCD and 
confinement for seven months was well within the legal limits and 
was an appropriate punishment for the offenses 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 9 Aug 11, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to 
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a 
response has not been received (Exhibit E). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 
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 Uniform Code of Military Justice (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 grant favorable action on his 
request. 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-2011-01976 in Executive Session on 4 Oct 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number 
BC-2011-01976 was considered: 

 

 

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

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. FBI Report of Investigation, dated 29 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 23 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Aug 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 9 Aug 11. 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair