RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03004

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to general, under 
honorable conditions.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is remorseful for his youthful indiscretion.  Since his 
discharge, he has led an exemplary life.  

In support of his request, the applicant, through his spouse, 
provides copies of his marriage documents, durable power of 
attorney for health care, letter from his attending physician, 
letters of character reference, DD Form 214, Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty, enlisted performance 
reports, as well as documents pertaining to a congressional 
inquiry in his behalf.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to documents extracted from his military personnel 
record, the applicant is a former member of the Regular Air 
Force who entered active duty on 8 February 1977.  He served as 
a Communications-Computer Systems Operator and was progressively 
promoted to the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt), E-5.  

On 19 June 1989, the applicant was found guilty by a general 
court-martial for violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ), Wrongful Use, Possession, etc., of 
Controlled Substances for specifications of wrongful possession, 
distribution, and use of cocaine.  He pled guilty with exception 
to possession of cocaine and guilty to the other specifications 
and was found guilty of all specifications.  His sentence was a 
bad conduct discharge, 24 months confinement, forfeiture of $150 
pay per month for 24 months, and reduction to the grade of 
airman basic (AB) E-1.  The confinement time was reduced to 20 
months and the convening authority approved the sentence as 
adjudged on 19 June 1989.  The applicant was released from 
active duty on 28 February 1990, with a bad conduct 
characterization of service and was credited with 12 years, 4 
months and 10 days of active duty service.  His grade at the 
time of release was Airman Basic, E-1, with an effective date of 
pay grade of 14 July 1989.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force at Exhibit C.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1.  AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial.  JAJM states the applicant 
alleges no injustice and no error in the processing of the 
court-martial conviction against him.  At his court-martial, the 
applicant pled guilty to and was found guilty of the charge.  
The applicant was represented by military counsel and was 
afforded every right to which he was he was entitled.  

2.  The applicant reportedly is suffering from Alzheimer's 
disease.  His wife, the applicant's health care agent, submitted 
the application in behalf of her husband.  She is asking that 
her husband's bad conduct discharge be upgraded because he has 
led an exemplary life since his discharge.  She admits her 
husband made a very bad decision that he regrets.  She states 
that he still tries to tell her how sorry he is for letting down 
both the service and his family.

3.  Rules for Courts-Martial 1003(b), (8), (C), states that a 
bad conduct discharge “is designed as punishment for bad 
conduct.”  It also indicates that a bad conduct discharge 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 bad conduct 
discharge was well within legal limits.  

The complete 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, by way of his wife, on 15 October 2013, for review 
and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  To date, a response has 
not been received.  

________________________________________________________________



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 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 Military Justice Division and adopt its rationale as the 
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the 
victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant's discharge was 
based on his trial and conviction by a general court-martial.  
Evidence has not been provided to show that the applicant's 
discharge was erroneous or unjust.  While we are precluded by 
law from reversing a court-martial conviction, we are authorized 
to correct the records to reflect actions taken by reviewing 
officials and to take action on the sentence of a military court 
based on clemency.  Notwithstanding his otherwise good service 
record, in view of the seriousness of the misconduct he 
committed (i.e., the possession, distribution and use of illegal 
substances), there is nothing in the available record which 
would cause us to disturb the actions of the reviewing officials 
in this case.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________

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 11 March 2014 under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

		, Panel Chair
      		, Member
		, Member



The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-03004 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 June 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 19 September 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 October 2013.