RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02287
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was accused of and found guilty for the illegal use of 
cocaine.  He was accused of date rape; however, this was 
overturned.  There is no error in his record.  He is seeking 
mercy.  He asks that the Air Force understand his ignorance and 
have compassion on him in order that he may receive benefits.

The applicant provides no additional documents in support of his 
appeal.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 April 
1985.

The applicant was tried and convicted by a general court-martial 
for the wrongful use of cocaine, in violation of Article 112a, 
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); rape, in 
violation of Article 120, UCMJ; communicating a threat and 
harassing a female both in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.  The 
applicant was found not guilty of charges of rape and of 
adultery.  The applicant was sentenced to a dishonorable 
discharge, confinement for 10 years, forfeiture of all pay and 
allowances and a reduction in grade to airman basic.  The 
applicant appealed to the Air Force Court of Military Review 
(AFCMR).  On 8 June 1994, the AFCMR reversed the applicant’s 
convictions for rape and harassment, but affirmed the finding of 
guilty on the threat and wrongful use of cocaine.  The applicant 
remained in confinement until 15 July 1994.  After his return to 
duty, and while awaiting the rehearing he drove a vehicle while 
drunk and was disorderly, which resulted in two nonjudicial 
punishment actions under Article 15, UCMJ.  His punishment 
consisted of a reduction in grade to airman basic.  The 
convening authority did not pursue the rape or harassment 
offenses and ordered a rehearing only on the sentence.  On 11 
January 1995, before a military judge, the applicant was 
sentenced to a BCD, one year confinement and forfeiture of 
$200.00 pay per month for 12 months.  The applicant appealed to 
the AFCMR who affirmed the sentence adjudged from the rehearing 
with the exception of the forfeiture which was disapproved in 
total on 31 January 1996.  On 24 May 1996, the convening 
authority ordered the BCD executed.

On 29 May 1996, the applicant was discharged in the grade of 
airman basic with a BCD under the provisions of General Court-
Martial Order #184.  He served 9 years, 4 months and 18 days on 
active duty.

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial.  JAJM states the applicant alleges 
no injustice and no error in the processing of the court-martial 
conviction against him.  His record of trial shows no error in 
the processing of his court-martial.  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 applicant committed while a member of the 
armed forces.  The applicant’s sentence to a BCD was well within 
legal limits, continues to be part of a proper sentence and 
properly characterizes his service.

Clemency in this case would be unfair to those 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, separations from family, 
facing hostile enemy action and suffering financial hardships.  
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 the reason of the sentence of a 
general court-martial.  It would be offensive to all those who 
served honorably to extend the same benefits to someone who 
committed crimes such as the applicant’s while on active duty.

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________
_







APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 5 August 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response 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 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 Chief, Military Justice Division and adopt 
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in 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 issues 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 an 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-2013-02287 in Executive Session on 28 January 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 May 2013.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 28 June 2013.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 August 2013.





4


3