RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02269 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He made a bad decision. He pled with the court to change his 
discharge to general and was informed it would be changed after 
many years. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 28 Nov 88, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 

 

On 1 May 90, he was tried and convicted by a general court-
martial for one specification of wrongful use of cocaine. He 
pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to a BCD, seven 
months confinement and reduced to the grand of airman basic. On 
7 Jun 90, the convening authority approved the sentence as 
adjudged. On 24 Oct 90, the United States Air Force Court of 
Military Review affirmed the applicant’s court-martial 
conviction. 

 

On 20 Feb 91, his petition for a grade of review before the 
United States Court of Military Appeals was denied. The findings 
and conclusions of his case under the UCMJ were final. On 29 Apr 
91, he was discharged for conviction by court-martial with a 
BCD. He served two years, five months and two days on active 
duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request due to 
timeliness or on its merits. JAJM states upgrading the 
applicant’s BCD is not appropriate. 

 

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 states the applicant offers not allegation of injustice or 
error in the processing of the court-martial conviction against 
him. He pled guilty at trial to the charges and specifications. 
Prior to accepting a guilty plea, the military judge ensured he 
understood the meaning and effect of his plea and the maximum 
punishment that could be imposed if his guilty plea was accepted 
by the court. The military judge explained the elements and 
definitions of the offenses to which the applicant pled guilty 
and the applicant explained in his own words why he believed he 
was guilty. 

 

JAJM notes both the adjudged and approved sentences were below 
the maximum possible sentence of a dishonorable discharge. The 
BCD is designed as punishment for bad-conduct and indicates that 
a bad conduct discharge is more than merely a service 
characterization, it is a punishment for crimes the applicant 
committed while a member of the armed forces. The applicant’s 
sentence was well within the legal limits and was an appropriate 
punishment for the offense 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, etc. 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 3 Aug 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). In the interest of justice, 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 offense of which convicted, and the absence of any 
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-
2012-02269: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Apr 12. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 23 Jul 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Aug 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair