RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02634 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His bad conduct discharge be upgraded. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He proudly served in support of Operation DESERT SHIELD/STORM. 
He received many awards and citations in the performance of his 
job as the record indicates. Since leaving the Air Force, he 
has had difficulties and has made mistakes that have cost him 
things that are very important to him. He has overcome those 
problems and lives a stable healthy life. Nothing has been more 
devastating to him than having a bad conduct discharge. 

 

There are times when he looks back over his military career and 
the time he spent in Saudi Arabia and feels sad and unfulfilled 
because he is not able to fully participate in the Veteran’s of 
America activities. He did not disgrace his country on foreign 
soil. No matter what happened during that one incident, the 
actions and dedication to his country cannot be denied. 

 

Yes, he is guilty of violating the laws that govern the Armed 
Forces, but he fully participated in the investigation and 
served eight months in confinement. What more humiliation could 
one person suffer than to be the darling of the base on one day 
and have to march to chow under guard with the shadow of where 
he once wore his rank. 

 

He now has a daughter that graduated from college and two more 
children working towards their degrees. He also has a 
granddaughter on the way. He truly wishes to take his 
grandchild to a Veterans Hall and show her how her grandfather 
was a part of a long line of Americans who were willing to give 
their lives in order for others to be free. 

 

He asks that this punishment end so that he can celebrate his 
military career with honor. 

 

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


 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force on 17 December 
1987. Pursuant to his pleas, he was convicted by a general 
court-martial of wrongfully using cocaine; and wrongful use of 
marijuana, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ). He was sentenced to a bad conduct 
discharge, confinement for 10 months, forfeiture of all pay and 
allowances and reduction to the grade of airman basic. Only so 
much of the sentence that provided for a bad conduct discharge, 
confinement of eight months, forfeiture of all pay and 
allowances and reduction to the grade of airman basic was 
approved. He was discharged 22 October 1992 with a bad conduct 
discharge. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. Title 10 U.S.C 1552(f) limits the 
Boards ability to correct court-martial records. Specifically, 
it permits the correction of a record to reflect actions taken 
by a reviewing authority and 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 Board is 
without authority to reverse, set aside, or otherwise expunge a 
court-martial conviction that occurred after 5 May 1950. 

 

The applicant alleges no error in his court-martial. Based on 
the applicant’s submission and the Automated Military Justice 
Analysis and Management System, there is no apparent error or 
injustice in how the court-martial was conducted. The applicant 
pled guilty at the trial to the charge and specifications. In 
cases which include guilty pleas, the military judge will ensure 
the accused understands the meaning and effect of his plea and 
the maximum punishment that could be imposed if his guilty plea 
is accepted by the court. The military judge will then explain 
the elements and definitions and have the accused explain in 
their own words why they are guilty. On the courts acceptance 
of the guilty plea, it will receive evidence in aggravation, as 
well, as extenuation and mitigation, prior to crafting an 
appropriate sentence for the crimes committed. The sentencing 
authority will then take all of these factors into consideration 
when imposing the sentence. The applicant’s sentence was well 
below the maximum allowable sentence which could have included a 
dishonorable discharge, confinement for ten years, forfeiture of 
all pay and allowances, and a reduction to the lowest enlisted 
grade. Moreover, the applicant was granted two months 
mitigation of his sentence to confinement by the general court-
martial convening authority. 

 

Clemency in this case, in the form of upgrading the discharge 
characterization would be unfair to those individuals who 
honorably served their country while in uniform. Congress’ 


intent in setting up the Veteran’s 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 are barred 
when the veteran was discharged or dismissed by reason of the 
sentence of a general court-martial. Upgrading the applicant’s 
discharge is not appropriate. 

 

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

In a three-page statement, the applicant offers background 
information to his activities surrounding his enlistment into 
the Air Force, as well as the challenges he faced as a young 
husband and father. He explains how he used illegal drugs as an 
escape and he knows that was wrong. 

 

He received a letter that said it would be unfair to give him 
the same benefits as other veterans who served honorably. This 
is true except that he served honorably in a time of war and 
endured the same personal sacrifices, faced the same hostile 
enemies and financial hardships. He prays that his service to 
his country means something. He has lived with this dishonor 
for over 20 years, and believes that his has paid his debt to 
the military. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 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), our actions 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 absence of any documentation pertaining 
to his post-service activities. Based on the evidence of 
record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted. In view 
of the above, we cannot recommend approval based on the current 
evidence of record. 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2012-02634 in Executive Session on 15 February 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, undated, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 18 Oct 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Oct 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 12 Dec 12. 

 Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 7 Jan 13, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair