AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-02290 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

 

 

     
 
_____________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:  
 
His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general discharge.   
 
_____________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He doesn’t believe his record is unjust or erroneous; however, he has 
been unemployed for the last 18 months with no medical benefits, and 
has been suffering with medical issues for the past three years.  He 
served his sentence while he was in the Air Force and has been drug-
free  for  the  past  five  and  a  half  years.    He  has  also  been  a 
productive  member  of  society.    He  wishes  to  have  his  benefits 
reinstated.   
 
A copy of the applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 
 
_____________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 2 August 1989, the applicant, then an airman (E-2), was tried and 
convicted  by  general  court-martial  for  one  specification  of 
wrongfully  violating  a  lawful  order,  in  violation  of  Article  92, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and three specifications of 
the wrongful use of marijuana, methamphetamine, and cocaine each, in 
violation  of  Article  112a,  UCMJ.    At  the  general  court-martial  and 
before  a  military  judge  alone,  the  applicant  was  found  guilty, 
consistent  with  his  pleas,  to  both  charges  and  all  four 
specifications.    He  was  sentenced  to  a  BCD,  19  months  confinement, 
forfeiture  of  all  pay  and  allowances,  and  reduction  to  the  grade  of 
airman  basic  (E-1).    On  10  October  1989,  the  convening  authority 
approved  the  sentence  as  adjudged.    On  10  January  1990,  the  United 
States  Air  Force  Court  of  Military  Review  affirmed  the  applicant’s 
court-martial conviction.  As the applicant failed to submit a timely 
petition to the United States Court of Military Appeals, the findings 
and sentence in his case became final and conclusive under the UCMJ.  
As a result, the applicant’s BCD was ordered to be executed on 1 May 
1990. 
 
The  applicant  was  discharged  effective  24  May  1990  with  a  BCD  and  a 
narrative  reason  for  separation  of  “Conviction  by  Court-Martial 
(Other than Desertion).”  He served 3 years, 5 months, and 18 days on 
active duty with lost time from 2 August 1989 through 24 May 1990.  

 

 

 
On 16 January 2013, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit 
comments  about  his  post  service  activities  (Exhibit  E).    As  of  this 
date, this office has received no response.   
 
_____________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFLOA/JAJM  recommends  denial.    JAJM  states  the  applicant  offers  no 
allegation  of  error  or  injustice.    He  simply  requests  his  BCD  be 
upgraded so he can obtain veteran’s medical benefits.  He alleges no 
error in the processing of the court-martial conviction against him.  
The applicant pled guilty at trial to the charge and specifications.  
Prior  to  accepting  his  guilty  plea,  as  evidenced  by  the  record  of 
trial,  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  plea  was  accepted  by  the  court.    The 
military judge explained the elements and definitions of the offenses 
to  which  the  applicant  pled  guilty,  and  the  applicant  explained  in 
his  own  words  why  he  believed  he  was  guilty.    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 
military  judge  took  all  of  these  factors  into  consideration  when 
imposing  the  applicant’s  sentence.    Both  the  adjudged  and  the 
approved  sentences  were  below  the  maximum  possible  sentence  of  a 
dishonorable  discharge,  confinement  for  twelve  years,  total 
forfeiture  of  all  pay  and  allowances,  and  reduction  to  the  grade  of 
airman basic.   
 
It  is  JAJM’s  opinion  that  clemency  in  this  case  would  be  unfair  to 
those  individuals  who  honorably  served  their  country  while  in 
uniform.    It  addition,  it  would  be  offensive  to  those  who  served 
honorably to extend the same benefits to someone who committed crimes 
such as the applicant’s while on active duty.   
 
The complete 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 
3 August 2012, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  As 
of this date, this office has received no response. 
 
_____________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law 
or regulations. 

 

 
2 

 

 

 

 
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  the  Air 
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the 
basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the  victim 
of an error or injustice.  Therefore, the applicant’s request is not 
favorably considered. 
 
_____________________________________________________________________ 
 
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  AFBCMR  Docket  Number 
BC-2012-02290  in  Executive  Session  on  5  March  2013,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 

 
 
 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member 

 
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2012-02290 was considered: 
 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 May 12. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 24 Jul 12. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Aug 12.  
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Jan 13, w/atch.  

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

  
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Panel Chair 

 
3