RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04214 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to general under honorable 
conditions. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was given an unfair discharge that was not representative of 
his service. He, like many American’s, finds it hard to secure 
a job in these tough economic times and having a bad conduct 
discharge is creating an undue hardship. For three years his 
conduct was exemplarily. He was nominated for Airman Below the 
Zone and was the first runner up for the John Levitow award. 

 

He was given this punishment because his unit was embarrassed 
and even the inconsequential participants were harshly judged. 
His punishment was out of the ordinary for someone who was 
removed from the incident. He was barely old enough to be 
considered an adult at the time of the incident and it seems 
unfair he should still pay for a mistake he made 25 years ago. 
He asks the Board’s utmost consideration in upgrading his 
discharge. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal 
statement. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force on 23 April 
1985. 

 

The applicant was convicted of violating Article 134, of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice, by a general court-martial. 
He was found guilty of wrongfully soliciting another Airman to 
steal a computer and wrongfully buying stolen property. On 
14 February 1989, he was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, 


confinement for four months, forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month 
for four months and reduction to the grade of airman basic. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia provided a copy of an 
investigation report (Exhibit C). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. Ordinarily, the appeal must be 
filed within three years after an error or injustice is 
discovered, or should have been discovered. The applicant’s 
court-martial took place in 1989, therefore, the application is 
untimely. 

 

The Rules for Court-Martial (RCM) states that a bad conduct 
discharge is designed as a punishment for bad conduct. The RCM 
also indicates it is more than a service characterization; it is 
punishment for crimes committed while serving as a member of the 
armed forces. The applicant’s punishment was well within the 
legal limits and was an appropriate punishment for the offenses 
committed. 

 

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 Benefits Program was to 
express thanks for veteran’s personal sacrifices. All the 
rights of a veteran under the laws are barred when the veteran 
is 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 those rights to someone who committed 
crimes such as the applicant. 

 

The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

In his response to the JAJM advisory, the applicant indicates 
that his case involved a group of criminals that willingly 
participated in breaking and entering and stealing and and one 
was given an other than honorable discharges. His discharge was 
harsher, so hefails to see how this is justice. 

 

Additionally the applicant responded by letter to a request for 
post-service information and provided a summary of his actions 
since leaving service. He indicates he worked in the social 
services field from 1995 to 2004 as a direct care counselor for 
at risk youth. He, along with others victimized by gun 
violence, helped introduce The Fix Gun Checks Act to congress. 
He also worked as a veteran’s assistant while attending college. 

 


He states he has not been perfect since leaving active duty but 
has tried to remain a productive citizen through several 
difficult situations. He made a mistake at a very young age and 
would like to put it behind him. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we 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. However, we 
recognize the adverse impact of the discharge the applicant 
received; and while it may have been appropriate at the time, we 
believe it would be an injustice for him to continue to suffer 
its effects. Therefore, we believe it is in the interest of 
justice to upgrade his discharge on the basis of clemency. 
Accordingly, we recommend that his records be corrected to the 
extent indicated below. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 1 February 
1990, he was discharged with service characterized as general 
(under honorable conditions). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-04214 in Executive Session on 5 April 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

 , Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

 

 


All members voted to correct the record, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-
2011-04214 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Oct 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. FBI Investigative Report. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 28 Dec 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Jan 12. 

 Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 30 Jan 12. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 1 Mar 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Chair