RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03586 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His deceased father’s bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to 
a general (under honorable conditions). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. His father had a drinking problem and served during a time of 
war. 

 

2. There are no records due to a fire, so any findings by a 
board in 1955 cannot be reviewed; therefore, his father’s 
discharge should be overturned. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of a 
letter and his father’s death certificate. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The former member’s military personnel records appear to have 
been destroyed in the fire at the National Personnel Records 
Center in St. Louis in 1973. Data extracted from his 
reconstructed records reflects that he enlisted in the Regular 
Air Force on 23 Jan 53, was discharged on 26 Sep 55, and was 
issued a BCD. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) provided a copy of an Investigative Report 
(Exhibit C). 

 

On 10 Apr 12, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the 
applicant for review and comment within 30 days. At the same 
time, the applicant was offered an opportunity to provide 
information pertaining to his deceased father’s activities since 
leaving the service (Exhibit F). 

 


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 D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states during the 
applicant’s deceased father’s brief tenure on active duty, he 
received four court-martial convictions and two Article 15s, 
Uniform Court of Military Justice(UCMJ), punishments. 

 

The applicant’s allegation of injustice amounts to no more than 
a claim that his deceased father was a lifelong alcoholic and 
served his country in a time of war. Given that the Korean War 
was largely over by mid 1953, this is hardly persuasive. The 
applicant’s father pled guilty at trial to the charge. Prior to 
accepting his guilty plea, as evidenced by the record of trial, 
the president of the court ensured the applicant’s father 
understood that the plea of guilt meant he was subjected to a 
finding of guilt without further proof of the offense. 

 

On the court’s acceptance of his guilty plea, it received 
evidence in aggravation, as well as in extenuation and 
mitigation, prior to crafting an appropriate sentence for the 
crime committed. The members took all of these factors into 
consideration when imposing the sentence. The sentence adjudged 
was below the maximum possible sentence. 

 

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 a 
punishment for the crimes he committed while a member of the 
armed forces. His sentence to a BCD was well within the legal 
limits and was an appropriate punishment for the offense 
committed. A BCD was and continues to be part of a proper 
sentence and properly characterizes his service. 

 

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’s father did while on active duty. 

 

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D. 


 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant states that after looking at the FBI report it is 
difficult to come up with something he did, after his discharge 
from the Air Force that was worthwhile. The one and only joy in 
his father’s life was the birth of his sister, which is the main 
reason he is asking that his father’s BCD be upgraded to a 
general. The applicant states he wants his sister to have 
access to some Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. 

 

He realizes his deceased father is not a prime candidate for 
upgrade but prays the Board will consider his request. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of AFLOA/JAJM and adopt its rationale as the 
basis for our conclusion the applicant’s deceased father has not 
been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis for us 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-2011-03586 in Executive Session on 31 May 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 


 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Sep 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Reconstructed Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. FBI Report, dated 29 Mar 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 5 Dec 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 23 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 10 Apr 12. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant’s, dated 30 Apr 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair