RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04121 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded to Honorable. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His record is unjust because his youthful indiscretions were due 
to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from working with live 
munitions. He was an exemplary Airman as his performance report 
shows. His attention to detail saved countless lives. His 
discharge is under-graded, preventing him from qualifying for 
civilian housing. He is now a homeless vet. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant initially entered the Air Force on 4 Jan 77. 

 

On 10 Apr 79, the applicant was furnished a UOTHC discharge 
after completing seven months in confinement for his 17 May 78 
conviction in a general court-martial. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR) which is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice. The applicant primarily fulfilled duties 
as a munitions maintenance specialist. On 17 May 78, the 
applicant, then an airman first class, was found guilty of one 
charge and two specifications of larceny of property totaling 


approximately $200 in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCJM); one charge and two specifications of 
making false checks totaling $100 in violation of Article 123, 
UCMJ; and one charge and one specification of housebreaking into 
the base Officers Wives Club in violation of Article 130, UCMJ. 
The applicant had been charged with 14 additional 
specifications, but the defense successfully moved to dismiss 
those specifications after arraignment. The applicant was 
sentenced to a bad conduct discharge (BCD), confinement for 
seven months, forfeiture of $200 per month for seven months, and 
a reduction in grade to E-1. On 26 Jul 78, the convening 
authority approved the sentence. On 14 Nov 78, the Air Force 
Court of Military Review approved and affirmed the findings and 
sentence. In Feb 79, the United States Court of Military 
Appeals denied the applicant’s request for review, thus making 
his case final and conclusive under the UCMJ. On 6 Apr 79, the 
discharge was executed. 

 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(f), the Board’s ability to correct 
records related to courts-martial is limited. Specifically, 
§ 1552(f) permits the correction of a record to reflect actions 
taken by a reviewing authority under the UCMJ. Additionally, 
§ 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 § 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 offers no specific allegation of injustice, nor does 
he allege any error in the processing of the general court-
martial conviction against him and his record of trial shows no 
error in the processing of the court-martial. The court 
received evidence in aggravation, as well as in extenuation and 
mitigation, prior to crafting an appropriate sentence for the 
crimes committed. Rule for Courts-Martial 1003 (b)(8)(C) states 
that a bad conduct discharge “is designed as punishment for bad-
conduct.” It also indicates that a BCD is more than merely a 
service characterization; it is a punishment for the crimes the 
applicant committed while a member of the armed forces. A BCD 
was and continues to be part of a proper sentence and properly 
characterizes his service. Clemency in this case would be 
unfair to those who honorably served their country while in 
uniform. 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. 

 

A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 1 Apr 13, a copy of the Air Force advisory and a request for 
post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for 
review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response 
has been received by this office (Exhibit D). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. The evidence 
of record indicates the applicant was sentenced by a court-
martial to a bad conduct discharge (BCD); however, it appears he 
was ultimately furnished an administrative discharge with an 
under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) character of 
service. While the applicant contends his UOTHC discharge was 
unjust and argues that his indiscretions were the result of his 
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), other than his own 
uncorroborated assertions, he has presented no evidence 
whatsoever that would cause us to question the underlying basis 
for his UOTHC discharge or convince us that it was not somehow 
inconsistent with the substantive provisions of the governing 
directive, there was an abuse of discretionary authority, or 
that he was denied rights to which he was entitled. The 
applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to 
believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the 
provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or 
disproportionate to the offenses committed. In the interest of 
justice, we considered upgrading the discharge on the basis of 
clemency; however, in the absence of any documentation 
describing the applicant’s activities since leaving the service, 
we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought on that 
basis. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence 
to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to grant 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 issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2012-04121 in Executive Session on 23 May 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Aug 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 5 Dec 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Apr 13, w/atch. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair