RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01051

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES 


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable 
discharge.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was forced to be absent without leave (AWOL).  He needs his 
discharge upgraded for veterans’ benefits.  He is ashamed of his 
BCD.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 3 May 68, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force.

On 19 Jun 69, the applicant was tried and convicted by a special 
court-martial for one specification of being AWOL.  He was 
sentenced to a BCD, six months confinement, and forfeiture of 
$25.00 of pay per month for six months.  On 22 Jul 69, the 
convening authority approved the finding and the sentence as 
adjudged.  On 18 Aug 69, United States Air Force Court of 
Military Review affirmed the applicant’s court-martial, 
conviction and sentence.  On 17 Oct 69, the convening authority 
ordered the execution of the BCD.  The applicant was furnished a 
BCD on 22 Oct 69, and credited with one year, five months, and 
three days of active service.

On 17 Jan 14, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  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 court-martial or his 
conviction.  The applicant pled guilty being AWOL.  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 receives 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 state that a BCD "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 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 BCD 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 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 
veterans’ 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 24 Jul 13 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D).  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, and 
the seriousness of the offenses to which convicted.  However, in 
the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s post-
service activities that would enable us to determine if his 
accomplishments since his discharge are sufficient to overcome 
the misconduct for which he was discharged, we find no basis 
upon which to favorably consider 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 issue(s) 
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-2013-01051 in Executive Session on 27 Feb 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Feb 13.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 19 Jun 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jul 13.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Jan 14, w/atch.




                                   Panel Chair