RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04859 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was guilty of making a bad decision as a young airman; 
however, while disciplinary actions were in order, 
rehabilitation should have been made available prior to his 
discharge. His bad decision was a one-time incident. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a certificate 
of military service and a certificate for the successful 
completion of a course presented by the Alcohol and Drug 
Residential Treatment Team. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant served in the military from 19 Feb 81 to 
13 Aug 87. On 14 Sep 86, he was tried at special court-martial 
for one specification of wrongfully using cocaine in violation 
of Article 112(a) Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and 
one specification of absenting himself from duty without 
authority, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. 

 

On 16 Sep 86, he was found guilty of wrongfully using cocaine 
but not guilty of absenting himself without authority. He was 
sentenced to a BCD, confinement for two months, forfeiture of 
$250.00 per month for two months, and a reduction in grade from 
sergeant (E-4) to airman basic (E-1). 

 

 


On 3 Mar 87, the Air Force Court of Military Review approved and 
affirmed the findings and sentence. The applicant declined to 
petition the US Court of Military Appeals for a review of the 
decision of the Court of Military Review, making the findings 
and sentence in his case final and conclusive under the UCMJ. 
His BCD was executed on 30 Jun 87. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM notes the untimeliness of the application and 
recommends denial. JAJM further notes the applicant offered no 
allegation of injustice; he simply wants his BCD to be upgraded 
due to his offense being a one-time mistake and that he was not 
offered any rehabilitation opportunities. The court adjudged 
guilt as to the wrongful use of cocaine, beyond a reasonable 
doubt, based on the evidence provided by the prosecution. A 
forensic toxicologist testified for the prosecution that the 
positive urinalysis reflected the applicant did use cocaine. A 
BCD is designed as punishment for bad conduct. A BCD is more 
than just a service characterization; it is a punishment for the 
crimes the applicant committed while a member of the armed 
forces. His sentence was well within the legal limits and was 
an appropriate punishment for the offense committed. Clemency, 
in this case, would be unfair to those individuals who honorably 
served their country while in uniform. The applicant had an 
opportunity to receive clemency from the convening authority 
after his court-martial; however, in his request for clemency, 
the applicant continued to deny ever using cocaine. Upgrading 
his character of service based on clemency would grant the 
applicant access to veteran’s benefits originally intended by 
Congress as thanks for veterans’ personal sacrifices, 
separations from family, facing hostile enemy action and 
suffering financial hardships. It would be offensive 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. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 24 Feb 12 for review and comment within 30 days. 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit D). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 


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 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, the 
seriousness of the offenses to which convicted, and the 
documentation pertaining to the applicant’s post-service 
activities. Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude 
that clemency is warranted in this case. 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-2011-04859 in Executive Session on 19 September 12, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

 

 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-04859 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Nov 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 6 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair