AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00736 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
1. The characterization of service he received does not reflect 
the type of service he performed prior to being discharged.  His 
one-time offense does not describe the individual he is and that 
he is sorry for the actions that led to his discharge.   
 
2. At the time of his offense, he was going through a very nasty 
divorce  and  began  spending  time  with  the  wrong  people.    He 
admits  he  engaged  in  a  sexual  relationship  with  an  underage 
female, and that she misled him as to her age. 
 
3.  Since  his  discharge,  he  has  spent  his  life  educating  and 
helping others from going down the same path of destruction. 
 
In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal 
statement.  
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachment,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 23 Jan 87, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.  
 
On 22 Dec 88, the applicant was tried and convicted by a general 
court-martial  for  one  specification  of  carnal  knowledge,  in 
violation  of  Article  120,  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice 
(UCMJ)  and  one  specification  of  adultery,  in  violation  of 
Article  134,  UCMJ.    He  was  sentenced  by  a  military  judge  to  a 
BCD,  confinement  for  one  year,  reduction  in  grade  to  airman 
basic, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.  On 24 Feb 89, 
the  convening  authority  approved  the  sentence  as  adjudged.    On 
5 May 89, the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals 
affirmed  the  applicant’s  court-martial  conviction  and  sentence.  

 

 

The applicant declined to appeal the Air Force Court of Military 
Review’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Armed Forces, making the findings and sentence in his case final 
and conclusive under the UCMJ.  On 4 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 (Exhibit C).  
 
On  27  Aug  12,  the  AFBCMR  staff  offered  the  applicant  an 
opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities 
since  leaving  the  service  (Exhibit  F).    As  of  this  date,  no 
response has been received by this office.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFLOA/JAJM  recommends  denial  based  on  the  application  being 
untimely and also on its merits.  
 
JAJM states they are unable to review the applicant’s Record of 
Trial,  the  applicant  alleges  no  error  in  the  processing  of  the 
general court-martial conviction against him.  He pled guilty at 
trial  to  the  charges  and  their  specifications.    Prior  to 
accepting  his  guilty  plea,  as  evidenced  by  the  Staff  Judge 
Advocate’s(Review of Trial by Court-Martial, 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  pleas  were  accepted  by  the  court.    The  military  judge 
explained the elements and definitions of the offenses to which 
the  applicant  pled  guilty.    During  the  court-martial,  the 
applicant  admitted  to  knowingly  engaging  in  sexual  intercourse 
with a woman he knew was under the age of 16, while he was still 
married  to  his  wife.    On  the  court’s  acceptance  of  the 
applicant’s guilty plea, it received evidence in aggravation, as 
well  as  in  extenuation  and  mitigation,  prior  to  crafting  an 
appropriate sentence for the crimes committed.   
 
The  applicant’s  sentence  to  a  BCD,  confinement  for  one  year, 
total  forfeiture  of  all  pay  and  allowances,  and  a  reduction  to 
the grade airman basic was well within the legal limits and was 
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,  in  the  form  of  upgrading  his 
discharge characterization, 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 

 

2

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  Jun  12  for  review  and  comment  within  30  days 
(Exhibit  E).    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  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.  However, we found no error or injustice with regard 
to  the  actions  taken  against  the  applicant  and  find  no  basis 
exists  to  grant  favorable  action  on  his  request.    In  addition, 
based  on  the  evidence  of  record,  we  are  not  persuaded  the 

 

3

characterization  of  the  applicant’s  discharge  warrants  an 
upgrade to general on the basis of clemency.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
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-2012-00736  in  Executive  Session  on  4  Oct  12,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
Panel Chair 
 
Member 
Member 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Aug 11, w/atch. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
 
Exhibit C.  Negative FBI Response, dated 28 Aug 12 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 13 Jun 12 
 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jun 12.  
 
Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 27 Aug 12. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Panel Chair 

  
  
  

  
  

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

4