RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03769 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to general (under 
honorable conditions). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

After his honorable discharge, the criminal action was deemed a 
dead issue. Upon his reenlistment, the case was reopened. He 
feels the reenlistment was entrapment. Current economic 
developments have made day to day life difficult. He would like 
to apply for benefits to support his family. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force on 16 June 1987. 
On 20 June 1991, he was convicted by general court-martial of 
six specifications of larceny, in violation of Article 121, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); three specifications of 
forgery, in violation of Article 123, UCMJ and one specification 
of false swearing, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. He was 
sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for one year, 
forfeiture of $400.00 pay per month for 12 months and reduction 
to the grade of airman basic. He was discharged 27 June 1997 
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 that he was entrapped into reenlisting. 
He asserts that he was told the investigation into his 
misconduct was closed, and that the investigation was reopened 
after he reenlisted. He insinuates that had he known the 
investigation would be reopened, he would not have reenlisted. 
Yet, he provides no support for his assertion the investigation 
concerning his misconduct had been closed. At the time of his 
court-martial, the applicant did not raise this issue. Further, 
he did not raise this issue in either of his clemency requests. 
The applicant’s case underwent a lengthy appellate review 
involving multiple reviews by both the Air Force Court of 
Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) and the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Armed Forces (USCAAF). Whereas, USCAAF returned the 
case after finding the applicant did not receive fair and 
impartial legal counsel in preparing his clemency request. At 
no point did the applicant raise this reenlistment issue in his 
appeals. There is no evidence the applicant was entrapped into 
reenlisting. The sentence was later affirmed by both the AFCCA 
and USCAAF. 

 

The applicant raises no error in the processing of his court-
martial. He pled not guilty at trial, nevertheless, the court 
adjudged guilt on the specifications beyond a reasonable doubt, 
based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. During the 
court-martial, the prosecution introduced evidence that the 
applicant forced [sic] eighteen checks belonging to a fellow 
airman at two overseas Army and Air Force Exchange Service 
facilities. The evidence presented included testimony by the 
airman whose checks were forged, Air Force investigators, a 
Questioned Documents Examiner Report and other evidence. The 
applicant, who was represented by military counsel, had the 
opportunity to challenge these witnesses and the report. The 
court received evidence in aggravation, as well as, extenuation 
and mitigation prior to crafting an appropriate sentence for the 
crimes committed. The court-martial took all of these factors 
into consideration when imposing the sentence. 

 

Rules for Court-Martial 1003(b)(8)(C) states 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 punishment for crimes committed 
while a member of the Armed Forces. The applicant’s sentence 
was an appropriate sentence for the offenses committed and well 
within the legal limits. A bad conduct discharge was and 
continues to be part of a proper sentence and properly 
characterizes his service. 

 

Clemency in this case, 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: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation and a request for post-
service information was forwarded to the applicant for review 
and comment on 30 October 2012 and 12 December 2012, 
respectively (Exhibits D and 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. 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-2012-03769 in Executive Session on 16 April 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, 1 Aug 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 19 Oct 12. 

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair