RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01933 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His dishonorable discharge be upgraded to an other than honorable 
conditions discharge [sic]. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He only experienced trouble while he was in the military. His 
civilian record before and after his discharge is clean. He is a 
law-abiding citizen. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 12 Mar 02, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 
On 11 Dec 04, he was tried by a general court-martial for two 
specifications of making false official statements; two 
specifications of rape; four specifications of indecent assault 
and four specifications of unlawful entry He pled not guilty to 
all the charges and specifications. 

 

The court found him guilty of two specifications of indecent 
assault and four specifications of unlawful entry. He was 
sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for four 
years, ordered to forfeit all pay and allowances and was reduced 
to the grade of airman basic. 

 

On 31 May 07, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed 
the applicant’s conviction and sentence. On 18 Dec 07, the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied his 
petition for a review making the findings and sentence in his 
case final and conclusive under the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice (UCMJ). On 18 Jan 08, he was dishonorably discharged. 
He served 4 years, 1 month and 17 days on active duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request as 
untimely or on the merits. 

 

JAJM states under 10 United States Code (USC) Section 1552(f), 
which amended the basic corrections board legislation, the 
Board’s ability to correct records related to courts-martial, is 
limited. Specifically, section 1552(f)(1) permits the correction 
of a record to reflect actions taken by a reviewing authority 
under the UCMJ. Additionally, section 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 section 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 50 (the effective date of the UCMJ). 

 

JAJM notes the applicant offered no allegation of injustice; 
however, just requests his dishonorable discharge be upgraded. 
He alleges no error in the processing of the court-martial 
conviction against him. His record of trial shows no error in 
the processing of the court-martial. He pled not guilty at 
trial; nevertheless, the court adjudged guilt beyond a reasonable 
doubt based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. The 
evidence consisted of testimony of the victims as well as some of 
the applicant’s statements given under a rights advisement 
containing partial admissions to some of the alleged acts. The 
court received evidence in aggravation as well as in extenuation 
and mitigation prior to crafting an appropriate sentence for the 
crimes committed. Both the adjudged and the approved sentences 
were below the maximum possible sentence of a dishonorable 
discharge, 12 years confinement, total forfeiture of all pay and 
allowances and reduction to airman basic. 

 

The rule for Courts-Martial states that a dishonorable discharge 
“should be reserved for those who should be separated under 
conditions of dishonor.” It also indicates that a dishonorable 
discharge is more than a service characterization; it is a 
punishment for crimes committed while a member of the armed 
forces. The applicant’s sentence was well within the legal 
limits and an appropriate punishment for the offenses committed. 

 

JAJM opines clemency in this case would be unfair to those 
individuals who honorably served their country while in uniform. 
Congress’ intent in setting up the Veterans’ Benefits Program was 
to express thanks for veterans’ personal sacrifices. All rights 
of a veteran under the laws administered by the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs are barred where the veteran was discharged or 
dismissed by reason of the sentence of a general court-martial. 

 


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 27 Jun 12, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this 
date, this office has received no response (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. 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 considered upgrading the discharge on the basis of 
clemency; however, after considering the applicant's overall 
quality of service, the court-martial conviction which 
precipitated the discharge, the seriousness of the offenses of 
which convicted, and the documentation pertaining to his post-
service activities, 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 this application in 
Executive Session on 20 Feb 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

, Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-01933: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Mar 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

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

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jun 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair