AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00443 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
   
 
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
Her bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
Her  misconduct  was  a  one-time  mistake.    She  has  matured  since 
the  incident  and  is  productive.    She  served  her  country 
honorably. 
 
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 28 Apr 80, the applicant contracted her initial enlistment in 
the Regular Air Force.   
 
On 9 Aug 89, the applicant was tried and convicted by a special 
court-martial  for  one  specification  of  the  wrongful  use  of 
cocaine  in  violation  of  Article  112a,  Uniform  Code  of  Military 
Justice (UCMJ).  The applicant was found guilty and sentenced to 
a  BCD,  confinement  for  four  months,  and  a  reduction  to  airman 
basic  (AB).    The  applicant's  bad  conduct  discharge  was  ordered 
to be executed on 22 May 90.   
 
On  13 Mar  97,  the  AFDRB  considered  and  denied  the  applicant’s 
request for an upgrade of her BCD to honorable. 
 
Pursuant  to  the  Board’s  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of 
Investigation (FBI) provided a copy of an Investigative Report, 
which is at Exhibit C. 
 
On  18  Jul  12,  a  copy  of  the  FBI  Investigative  Report  and  a 
request  for  post-service  information  was  forwarded  to  the 
applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F).  As 
of this date no response has been received by this office. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an  error  or  injustice.    The  applicant  offers  no  allegation  of 
injustice;  she  simply  requests  an  upgrade  to  her  BCD  because 
misconduct was a one-time mistake.  She alleges no error in the 
processing  of  the  court-martial  conviction  against  her.    She 
pled guilty at trial to the charge and its specification.  Prior 
to accepting the applicant’s guilty plea, the judge ensured she 
understood  the  meaning  and  effect  of  her  plea  and  the  maximum 
punishment that could be imposed if her plea was accepted by the 
court.   
 
While  clemency  may  be  granted  under  10  U.S.C  §  1552(f)(2), 
clemency  is  not  warranted  in  this  case.    The  applicant’s 
sentence  to  a  BCD,  reduction  in  rank,  and  confinement  for  four 
months  was  well  within  the  legal  limits  and  was  an  appropriate 
punishment  for  the  offense  committed.    Congress’  intent  in 
setting up the Veteran’s Benefits Program was to express thanks 
for  veterans’  personal  sacrifices,  separations  from  family, 
facing hostile enemy actions, and suffering financial hardship.  
All  rights  of  a  veteran  under  the  laws  administered  by  the 
Secretary  of  the  Veterans  Affairs  are  barred  where  the  veteran 
was  discharged  or  dismissed  by  reason  of  the  sentence  of  a 
general  court-martial.    The  applicant’s  service  time  was 
punctuated  by  cocaine  use,  which  should  not  be  rewarded  by  the 
granting  of  veteran’s  benefits.    Upgrading  the  applicant’s  BCD 
is not appropriate.   
 
A complete copy of the AFLOA/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 24 May 12, for review and comment within 30 days.  
As  of  this  date,  no  response  has  been  received  by  this  office 
(Exhibit E). 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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 

 

2 

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  her  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.  However, in the 
absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s post-service 
activities,  we  are  not  inclined  to  upgrade  the  applicant’s 
discharge  on  that  basis.    Therefore,  in  view  of  the  above,  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-2012-00443 in Executive Session on 6 Sep 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
 Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Feb 12. 
 
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
 Exhibit C.  FBI Investigative Report. 
 
 Exhibit D.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 21 May 12. 
 
 
 Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 May 12. 
 
 Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Jul 12, w/atch. 
 
 
 
 
                                    
                                   Panel Chair 

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

 

3