RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02677 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Prior to the incidents which led to her discharge, she was an 
honorable airman, held a top secret security clearance, and 
showcased the exemplary character of the armed forces. She has 
been an outstanding citizen since leaving the service and has 
been employed with the same job for the last 14 years and has 
not been in any trouble. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

While serving in the grade of senior airman, the applicant was 
tried by a General Court-Martial and charged with one 
specification of wrongful possession of cocaine with intent to 
distribute and one specification of wrongful distribution of 
cocaine, both in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of conspiracy to 
commit an offense under the UCMJ, to wit: wrongful distribution 
of cocaine, in violation of Article 81, UCMJ. The applicant 
pled not guilty to the charges and specifications. She was 
found guilty of the violations of Article 112a, UCMJ, and not 
guilty of the violation of Article 81, UCMJ. She was sentenced 
to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for nine months and 
reduction to airman basic (E-1/AB). On 20 Dec 93, the convening 
authority approved the findings and only so much of the sentence 
as provided for a BCD, confinement for six months and reduction 
to the grade of airman basic. On 13 Sep 94, the Air Force Court 
of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings of guilty and the 
sentence in the applicant's case. The applicant petitioned the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for review 
of her case, but that petition was denied on 23 Nov 94, making 
the findings and sentence in her case final and conclusive under 
the UCMJ. 

 


The applicant was discharged by General Court-Martial Order #14, 
on 19 Jul 95, with a reason of separation of court-martial, with 
service characterized as bad conduct. She was credited with 
6 years, 10 months, and 27 days of active duty service 
(excluding lost time from 23 Sep 93 through 17 Feb 94 due to 
confinement). 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an 
investigative report, which is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial, stating, in part, the applicant 
does not allege error or injustice in her court-martial. The 
record shows that she was afforded all of the procedural rights 
offered by the court-martial and appellate process. 

 

The applicant pled not guilty to the offenses and was able to 
have an impartial panel of officer members decide whether the 
evidence showed, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she had 
committed the offenses to which she pled not guilty. During the 
pre-sentencing phase of the trial, the members heard evidence in 
aggravation, as well as extenuating or mitigating evidence from 
the applicant. The applicant provided an unsworn statement in 
which she expressed remorse and asked the members for leniency. 
The members evaluated the evidence and determined that the 
appropriate punishment for the offenses committed was a BCD, 
confinement for nine months and reduction to airman basic. As 
an act of clemency, the convening authority later reduced the 
amount of confinement to six months. 

 

Additionally, after the trial, the applicant's case was 
automatically referred to the Air Force Court of Criminal 
Appeals. An appellate defense counsel was appointed to 
represent her. After the Air Force Court affirmed the finding 
and sentence, she had the opportunity to petition the Court of 
Appeals of the Armed Force for review of her case. There is no 
evidence of error or injustice in the process of the applicant's 
court-martial or appeal. 

 

While clemency may be granted under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(f)(2), the 
applicant provides no justification for her request, and 
clemency is not warranted in this case. She indicates that she 
was an exemplary airman before her crimes and has stayed out of 
trouble since she was discharged from the Air Force. She 
provides the Board no documentation or letters of support to 
support either of these contentions. There is no evidence in 
the record of trial or in the application of how she has grown 
or learned from her past mistakes. The inclusion of a BCD in 
the applicant's sentence was well within the legal limits and 
appropriate considering the nature and severity of her crimes. 


 

The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 28 Oct 11 for review and comment within 30 days. 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit E). 

 

On 30 Apr 12, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the 
applicant for review and comment within 15 days. At that time, 
she was also invited to provide additional evidence pertaining 
to her activities since leaving the service (Exhibit F). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 find no evidence that indicates the applicant’s 
service characterization, which had its basis in her 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 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. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to the Board's understanding of the issues 


involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-02677 in Executive Session on 16 May 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. FBI Report of Investigation. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 6 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Apr 12. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair