RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04547 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable 
discharge. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

At the time of his discharge he was young and naïve and did not 
know how to defend himself. He was unjustly accused for a crime 
he did not commit and did not have adequate counsel. Since his 
discharge he has not been any trouble and has been employed by 
the government. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 293, Application for Review of Discharge from the Armed 
Forces of the United States. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 7 Oct 86, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force. 

 

On 5 Sep 90, the applicant was tried and convicted by a special 
court-martial for five specifications of larceny and wrongful 
appropriation in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ). The applicant pled and was found 
guilty and sentenced to a BCD, confinement for three months, and 
a reduction to airman basic (AB). The applicant’s sentence was 
adjudged on 5 Sep 90. The Air Force Court of Military Review 
affirmed the findings and sentence. He appealed to the United 
States Court of Military Appeals. The court denied his appeal. 
His bad conduct discharge was ordered to be executed on 
6 May 91. 

 

The applicant was furnished a BCD on 24 May 91. 

 


On 8 May 13, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days 
(Exhibit C). As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice. There was no evidence provided or 
located in records showing an error in the processing of the 
special court-martial; nor does the applicant contend there was 
an error in the processing of his special court-martial or his 
conviction. Prior to charges being preferred, the applicant 
admitted to stealing the monies to the Security Forces. The 
applicant pled guilty at trial to the charge and specifications. 
The applicant was represented by military counsel and had the 
opportunity to demand the government prove he committed the 
offenses against him. Prior to accepting the applicant’s guilty 
plea, the judge ensured he understood the meaning and effect of 
his plea and the maximum punishment that could be imposed if his 
plea was accepted by the court. In cases which include guilty 
pleas, the military judge ensures 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 explains the elements and definitions of the 
offenses to which the accused plead guilty; and has the accused 
explain in his own words why he believes he is guilty. Upon the 
court's acceptance of the guilty plea, it will receive evidence 
in aggravation, as well as in extenuation and mitigation, prior 
to crafting an appropriate sentence for the crimes committed. 

 

The Rules for Courts-Martial states 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 
individual committed while a member of the armed forces. The 
applicant's sentence was within the legal limits and was an 
appropriate punishment for the offenses committed. A bad 
conduct discharge was and continues to be part of a proper 
sentence and properly characterizes his service. 

 

While clemency may be granted under 10 U.S.C § 1552(f)(2), 
clemency is not warranted in this case. The applicant’s 
sentence to a BCD, reduction in rank, and confinement for four 
months was well within the legal limits and was an appropriate 
punishment for the offense committed. Congress’ intent in 
setting up the Veteran’s Benefits Program was to express thanks 
for veterans’ personal sacrifices, separations from family, 
facing hostile enemy actions, and suffering financial hardship. 
All rights of a veteran under the laws administered by the 
Secretary of the Veterans Affairs are barred where the veteran 
was discharged or dismissed by reason of the sentence of a 


general court-martial. The applicant’s service time was 
punctuated by cocaine use, which should not be rewarded by the 
granting of veteran’s benefits. Upgrading the applicant’s BCD 
is not appropriate. 

 

A complete copy of the 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 10 Dec 12, for review and comment within 30 days. 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an error or injustice. We note 
that 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), 
actions by this Board 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. We considered 
upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not 
find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to 
recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. Therefore, 
in view of the above, we find no basis upon which to favorably 
consider this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2012-04547 in Executive Session on 25 Jun 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Sep 12, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 26 Nov 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Dec 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 May 13, w/atch. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair