RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03284 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. On 2 May 08, he was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress 
Disorder (PTSD). 

 

2. He was never evaluated at the end of his term. His 
discharge paperwork was mailed to him and he was never offered 
drug counseling or rehabilitation. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty; AF Form 1613, Statement of Service; a doctor’s statement, 
and a general court-martial order. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 28 May 71, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 

 

On 22 Sept 88, the applicant was tried by a General Court-
Martial and pled guilty to one specification of wrongful 
possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Article 
112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and one 
specification of attempting to possess a controlled substance, 
in violation of Article 80, UCMJ. He was sentenced by a 
military judge to a BCD, confinement for seven months and 
reduction to the grade of airman (E-2). On 18 Oct 88, the 
convening authority approved the findings and only so much of 
the sentence as called for a bad conduct discharge, confinement 
for five months, and reduction to airman was affirmed. On 
20 Nov 88, the Air Force Court of Military Review affirmed the 
findings and the approved sentence. 

 


On 21 Dec 88, the applicant submitted a petition to the United 
States Court of Military Appeals for a grant of review of the 
Air Force Court’s decision. 

 

On 7 Apr 89, after a motion by appellate Government counsel, the 
United States Court of Military Appeals set aside the Air Force 
Court’s decision and returned the record of trial to the Air 
Force Court for further review. On 19 May 89, the Air Force 
Court issued its opinion concluding the applicant was not denied 
effective assistance of counsel affirming the findings and 
approved sentence. 

 

The applicant petitioned the United States Court of Military 
Appeals for review of the Air Force Court’s decision and, on 
16 Aug 89, the Court denied the petition, making the findings 
and sentence in his case final and conclusive under the UCMJ. 
On 5 Oct 89, the applicant’s BCD was ordered to be executed. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigations (FBI) Clarksburg, WV, states they were unable to 
identify an arrest record on the basis of the information 
furnished. 

 

On 10 May 12, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an 
opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities 
since leaving the service (Exhibit H). 

 

The applicant responded with a personal letter. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit I. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of his request to upgrade his 
discharge to general. 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 pled 
guilty at trial to the charges and specifications. 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. 

 

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 main basis for the 
applicant’s request for clemency is that he has been diagnosed 
with PTSD, but the applicant has not provided sufficient 


evidence to support that the diagnosis has any connection to the 
applicant’s court-martial offenses. The applicant provides a 
letter from a doctor, dated 17 Feb 11, in which the doctor 
discusses a concussion the applicant received on 2 May 08 and 
noting how the applicant’s alcoholism and PTSD were “clouding 
the clinical picture” with regard to his recovery. 

 

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 D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF 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 
(Exhibit E). As of this date, this office has not received a 
response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVAULAUTION: 

 

The Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical 
Consultant found no medical basis for the upgrade of discharge; 
except as a matter of compassion for access to care through the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). Had the applicant been a 
single time user/experimenter of marijuana, under today’s 
standards, he might warrant an upgrade to general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge. However, this does not appear 
to have occurred in the case under review. The Board should 
nevertheless give consideration of an upgrade as a matter of 
clemency. Addressing the applicant’s allegation that he never 
received a mental health evaluation, the record indicates that 
he did receive a mental health assessment prior to his 
confinement and a follow-up evaluation, at which time there was 
an ample opportunity to identify any residual mental defect or 
disclose any impairment related to PTSD or combat stress; no 
mental disorder was identifiable at the time of the applicant’s 
service. 

 


Other than the matter of clemency, considering the applicant’s 
current medical needs, the Medical Consultant opines the burden 
of proof has not been met to warrant consideration of the 
desired change of the record. 

 

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit 
F. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 2 May 12 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit G). 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, 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 upgrade his 
discharge. We considered upgrading the discharge based on 
clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is 
sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought 
on that basis. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the 
relief sought in 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-2011-03284 in Executive Session on 12 Jun 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Aug 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 12 Oct 11. 

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

 Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 

 dated 27 Apr 12. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 2 May 12. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 10 May 12. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 24 May 12. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair