RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02021 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His official records be corrected to update his Bad Conduct 
Discharge (BCD) to General (Under Honorable Conditions). 

 

2. He be restored to his previous rank of Staff Sergeant (SSgt) 
with back pay and full retirement benefits. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

During his time on active duty, he made errors in judgment which 
resulted in his discharge and has affected his family and 
professional life. His life has changed and he is ashamed of 
his conduct as a young Airman. He is now a mentor and a very 
productive citizen. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant initially entered the Air Force on 18 Oct 73, and 
progressively rose to the rank of Staff Sergeant. 

 

On 16 Aug 91, the applicant’s commander ordered him to report to 
the Base Hospital Laboratory to submit a urine sample to be 
tested for abuse of drugs. 

 

On 16 Sep 91, the Wing Medical Group notified the applicant’s 
commander the applicant’s urine tested positive for cocaine. 

 

On 30 Sep 91, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand, 
which was placed in an Unfavorable Information File (UIF). 

 

On 21 Nov 91, the applicant was convicted by Military Courts 
Martial of wrongful use of cocaine and three additional UCMJ 
violations. His sentence included 24 months confinement, 


reduction to the grade of Airman Basic (E-1), a Bad Conduct 
Discharge, and forfeiture of $400.00 per month for 3 months. 

 

On 4 Mar 93, the applicant was released from military 
confinement at Ft. Leavenworth, and placed on commandant’s 
parole. 

 

On 14 Jan 94, the applicant was placed back in confinement at 
Ft. Leavenworth for violating the terms of his parole, and was 
ultimately released from confinement on 1 Aug 94 and placed on 
appellate review leave. 

 

On 30 Aug 96, the applicant was furnished a Bad Conduct 
Discharge with a Narrative Reason of Separation of “Court 
Martial (Other).” 

 

On 11 Jan 13, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 
30 days. In response, the applicant provides an expanded 
statement with additional information on his life story, both 
during and after his service in the Air Force. In addition, the 
applicant provides six letters of support from relatives and 
acquaintances (Exhibit G). 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice. On 2 Jun 91, the applicant, then a staff 
sergeant, was stopped by a civilian police officer. The 
applicant consented to a breathalyzer test, which reflected an 
alcohol level of .11, above the legal limit of .08. A search of 
the applicant’s private belongings disclosed a bag containing 
.40 grams of cocaine. An ensuing urinalysis accomplished by the 
Air Force tested positive for cocaine. During the 
investigation, Air Force investigators discovered the applicant 
was writing checks knowing there were insufficient funds in 
these accounts. On 19 Nov 91, at a court-martial, before a 
panel of officer members, the applicant was found guilty of one 
specification of driving under the influence of alcohol, one 
specification of wrongful use of cocaine, and one specification 
of wrongful possession of cocaine, and two specifications of 
making, drawing, or uttering checks, drafts, or orders without 
specific funds. The applicant was sentenced to a BCD and 
reduction to airman basic, forfeiture of $400 pay per month for 
three months, and to be confined for twenty-four months. On 
24 Jan 92, the convening authority approved the sentence as 
adjudged. On 15 Jun 93, the Air Force Court of Military Review 
disapproved the guilty finding of one of the specifications 


alleging the applicant drafted checks knowing there were 
insufficient funds in his account. Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(f), 
which amended the basic corrections board legislation, the 
Board’s ability to correct records related to courts-martial is 
limited. Specifically, § 1552(f) permits the correction of a 
record to reflect actions taken by a reviewing authority under 
the UCMJ. Additionally, § 1552(f)(2) permits the correction of 
records related to action on the sentence of courts-martial for 
the purpose of clemency. Apart from these two limited 
exceptions, the effect of § 1552(f) is that the Board is without 
authority to reverse, set aside, or otherwise expunge a court-
martial conviction that occurred on or after 5 May 1950 (the 
effective date of the UCMJ). The applicant offers no allegation 
of injustice. He simply requests an upgrade to his bad conduct 
discharge because he has learned from his mistakes and would 
like to obtain medical treatment from the Veteran’s Affairs 
Office. The applicant alleges no error in the processing of the 
court-martial conviction against him and his record of trial 
shows no error in processing the court-martial. Upon the 
court’s finding of the applicant’s guilt, it received evidence 
in aggravation, as well as in extenuation and mitigation, prior 
to crafting an appropriate sentence for the crimes committed. 
The court members took all these factors into consideration when 
imposing the applicant’s sentence. Rule for Courts-Martial 
1003(b)(C) states that a BCD “is designed as punishment for bad 
conduct.” 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 whole a member of the 
armed forces. The applicant’s sentence to a BCD, confinement, 
total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a reduction to 
airman basic was well within the legal limits and was an 
appropriate punishment for the offense committed. Additionally, 
clemency in this case would not be fair 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 sacrifice, separations 
from family, facing hostile enemy action and suffering financial 
hardship. 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 an offense to all those 
who served honorably to extend the same benefits to someone who 
committed crimes such as the applicant’s while on active duty. 
Upgrading the applicant’s bad conduct discharge in not 
appropriate. 

 

A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant reiterates that he fully accepts responsibility 
for his actions that led to his BCD, indicating that his 


behavior was due to severe personal stress at the time. His 
three month-old son had recently died and after returning from 
Korea, he found that his wife of 12 years had been having an 
extra-marital affair with their pastor. The eventual divorce 
meant that he lost his other two children as well. He was 
diagnosed with Hepatitis-C and suffered complete renal failure. 
He had been a model Airman for over 18 years. He served 
24 months in a military prison and he feels that is adequate 
punishment. He is requesting clemency based on inequity for a 
one time isolated incident. He was not offered rehabilitation 
or psychological counseling (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 an error or injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include the 
evidence the applicant submitted in rebuttal to the Air Force 
advisory, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree 
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the 
basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim 
of an error of 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, and the seriousness of the offenses 
to which convicted. Based on the evidence of record, we cannot 
conclude that clemency is warranted. 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-2012-02021 in Executive Session on 20 Feb 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 May 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 17 Aug 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Aug 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Sep 12. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Jan 13, w/atch. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair