RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05280
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He believes the charges against him did not warrant a BCD. His
request is based on him wanting to get a good job. He was only
19 years old when he made these mistakes and is now 34 years
old, and feels that he has paid his dues. He performed
community service and paid all restitution in 1999. He has only
qualified to work menial jobs because of his type of discharge.
The applicant does not provide any supporting documentation.
His complete submission is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
_
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant served in the Regular Air Force and was court-
martialed for the following:
Violation of Article 123 (Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ): Two specifications of using another persons credit
card with the intent to defraud.
Violation Article 121 (UCMJ): Two specifications of larceny
in the amount of $1,772.34; and three specifications of
attempted larceny from three different locations in the amount
of $4,284.66.
The applicant pled guilty to the charges and was sentenced to
receive a BCD on 17 Jul 01 and was confined for twelve months.
He was discharged after serving 2 years, 11 months, and 24 days
on active duty.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of
the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
_
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. The applicant contends the
punishment did not fit the crime; therefore, his discharge
should be upgraded. At his court-martial, the applicant pled
guilty to all charges and specifications. He had the
opportunity to demand the government prove the offenses against
him. The military judge ensured the applicant understood the
meaning and effect of his plea prior to accepting his guilty
plea, and the maximum punishment that could be imposed if his
guilty plea was accepted by the court. The court received
evidence in aggravation, as well as in extenuation and
mitigation, prior to crafting an appropriate sentence for the
crimes committed. Additionally, clemency in this case would not
be fair to those who honorably served their country while in
uniform.
The complete 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 11 Jan 13 for review and comment within 30 days.
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 applicants 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-2012-05280 in Executive Session on 13 Aug 13, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Nov 12.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 4 Jan 13.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jan 13.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02018
On 29 Aug 85, the applicant was furnished a BCD with a narrative reason for separation of conviction by court-martial (desertion). On 8 May 87, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered the applicants appeal to upgrade is discharge to General and denied his request, finding neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiated an inequity or impropriety which would justify a change of the discharge. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04547
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. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01898
On 8 Jan 90, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals approved the findings of guilty and the sentence and the BCD was executed on 11 Jun 90. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denying the applicants request due to untimeliness or on its...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01575
The military judge did an inquiry of the guilty pleas and found them provident and entered a finding of guilty for both charges and specifications. As for the applicants contention that her personal accomplishments were not considered during her trial and in her request for clemency, a review of the Record of Trial indicates that this was a decision she and her counsel made at the time. We find no evidence which indicates the applicants service characterization, which had its basis in...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01634
As noted by the military judge during his court-martial, he unknowingly downloaded the files, but afterwards did not take the due diligence to delete the illegal files. We note that this Board is without authority to reverse, set aside, or otherwise expunge a court-martial conviction. We considered upgrading the discharge on the basis of clemency; however, in view of the applicants overall quality of service, the court-martial conviction which precipitated the discharge and the limited...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-01524
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01524 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _____________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a Under Other Than Honorable Condition (UOTHC) discharge. At the special court- martial and before a panel of officer members, consistent with his pleas, the applicant was found guilty of all three...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01051
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. It also indicates that a BCD 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 BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02290
On 10 January 1990, the United States Air Force Court of Military Review affirmed the applicant’s court-martial conviction. 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 Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04070
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04070 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions) or an honorable discharge. JAJM states the applicant does not allege an error or injustice, rather he believes the discharge should be upgraded due to the amount of...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03053
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03053 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded. JAJM states upgrading the applicants BCD is not appropriate and recommends the Board deny the request as untimely or on the merits. ________________________________________________________________ THE...