DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-02331 
COUNSEL:  
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 
 
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
   
 
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  bad  conduct  characterization  of  service  be  upgraded  to 
general. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
There are no errors in his discharge.  He served in Operations 
IRAQI  and  ENDURING  FREEDOM  and  made  mistakes  when  he  got  home.  
He has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 
by  four  doctors  including  a  military  psychiatrist.    He  has 
medical  problems  and  is  respectfully  asking  for  a  general 
discharge so that he may have some benefits for his service.   
 
The  applicant  did  not  submit  any  documents  in  support  of  his 
request.   
 
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
According  to  documents  extracted  from  the  automated  records 
management  system  (ARMS),  the  applicant  is  a  former  member  of 
the  Regular  Air  Force  who  entered  active  duty  on  15  May  2002.  
He  served  as  an  Aerospace  Maintenance  Apprentice  and  was 
progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class, E-3.   
 
On  30  June  2004,  the  applicant  was  tried  by  a  general  court-
martial for:   
 
  a.  one specification of wrongful use of cocaine, on or about 
15 January 2004 and on or about 17 March 2004, in violation of 
Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ),  Wrongful 
Use, Possession, etc., of Controlled Substances.   
 
  b.  two  specifications  of  absenting  himself,  from  his  unit, 
without  authority  on  10  March  2004  through  11  March  2004    and 
from  24  March  2004  through  27  March  2004,  in  violation  of 
Article 86, UCMJ, Absence without leave.   

 
  c.  one  specification  of  stealing  five  hundred  and  fifteen 
dollars, ($515.00), between on or about 10 March 2004 and on or 
about 12 March 2004, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ, Larceny 
and Wrongful Appropriation.   
 
  d.  one specification of falsely making three checks from the 
Pentagon Credit Union checking account of another individual, in 
the  combined  amount  of  five  hundred  and  fifteen  dollars, 
($515.00),  on  or  about  10  March  2004,  in  violation  of  Article 
123, UCMJ, Forgery.  
 
The  applicant  pled  guilty  to  all  specifications  and  was  found 
guilty of the charges and specifications.  The sentence adjudged 
by  the  military  court  on  30  June  2004,  was  a  bad  conduct 
discharge, confinement for 36 months, reduction to the grade of 
airman  basic,  and  forfeiture  of  all  pay  and  allowances  for  36 
months.  The sentence approved on 20 September 2004, was a bad 
conduct  discharge,  confinement  for  18  months,  reduction  to  the 
grade of airman basic, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances 
for 18 months. 
 
The applicant was released from active duty on 16 November 2006, 
with a bad conduct characterization of service and was credited 
with 4 years, 3 months and 1 day of active duty service.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFLOA/JAJM  recommends  denial.    JAJM  states  On  26  May  2006,  the 
United  States  Air  Force  Court  of  Criminal  Appeals,  by  written 
opinion, affirmed the applicant’s court-martial conviction.  On 
27  September  2006,  the  applicant’s  petition  for  a  grant  of 
review through the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed 
Forces was denied, making the findings and sentence in his case 
final  and  conclusive  under  the  UCMJ.    As  a  result,  the 
applicant’s bad conduct discharge was ordered to be executed on 
30 October 2006.   
 
Under Title 10 U.S.C., section 1552(f), which amended the basic 
corrections  board  legislation,  the  Board’s  ability  to  correct 
records  related  to  courts-martial  is  limited.    Specifically, 
section  1552(f)  (1),  permits  the  correction  of  a  record  to 
reflect  actions  taken  by  a  reviewing  authority  under  the  UCMJ.  
Additionally,  section  1552(f)  (2),  permits  the  correction  of 
records related to action on the sentence of courts-martial for 
the  purpose  of  clemency.    Apart  from  these  two  limited 
exceptions,  the  effect  of  section  1552(f)  is  that  the  Board  is 
without authority to reverse, set aside, or otherwise expunge a 
court-martial  conviction  that  occurred  on  or  after  5  May  1950, 
(the effective date of the UCMJ).   
 

 

The applicant alleges, without substantiation, that four doctors 
have  diagnosed  him  with  PTSD,  including  a  military  doctor.    He 
alleges  no  error  in  the  processing  of  the  court-martial 
conviction against him.  He pled guilty at trial to the charges 
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  approved  sentences  were  below  the  maximum 
possible  sentence  of  a  dishonorable  discharge,  confinement  for 
15  years  and  two  months,  total  forfeitures  of  all  pay  and 
allowances, a fine, and reduction to the grade of E-1.   
 
Rules  for  Courts-Martial  1003(b),  (8),  (C),  state  that  a  bad 
conduct  discharge  “is  designed  as  punishment  for  bad  conduct.”  
It  also  indicates  that  a  bad  conduct  discharge  is  more  than 
merely  a  service  characterization;  it  is  a  punishment  for  the 
crimes  the  applicant  committed  while  a  member  of  the  armed 
forces.    The  applicant’s  sentence  to  a  bad  conduct  discharge, 
confinement  for  18  months,  and  a  reduction  to  the  grade  of 
airman  basic,  were  well  within  the  legal  limits  and  was  an 
appropriate punishment for the offense committed.  A bad conduct 
discharge was and continues to be part of a proper sentence and 
properly characterizes his service.   
 
Additionally,  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  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.    See  38  U.S.C. 
5303(a).  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 
crimes such as the applicant’s while on active duty.   
 
The complete 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 17 July 2012, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D).  To 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 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 Military Justice Division and adopt its rationale as the 
basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the 
victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant's discharge was 
based  on  his  trial  and  conviction  by  a  general  court-martial.  
Evidence  has  not  been  provided  to  show  that  the  applicant's 
discharge  was  erroneous  or  unjust.    While  we  are  precluded  by 
law from reversing a court-martial conviction, we are authorized 
to  correct  the  records  to  reflect  actions  taken  by  reviewing 
officials and to take action on the sentence of a military court 
based on clemency.  In view of the seriousness of the misconduct 
he committed (i.e., the use of illegal substances, being absent 
without  leave,  and  committing  theft  and  forgery),  there  is 
nothing in the available record which would cause us to disturb 
the actions of the reviewing officials in this case.  Therefore, 
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 
 
4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been  shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel 
will  materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing 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. 
 

 

 
  

, Panel Chair 
, Member 
, Member 

________________________________________________________________ 
 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  this  application 
in  Executive  Session  on  18  December  2012,  under  the  provisions 
of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-02331 was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 June 2012. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 28 June 2012. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 July 2012. 
 
 
 
 
                                   
                                   Panel Chair