RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03229
			COUNSEL:  NONE
			HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He enlisted for four years and had excellent service prior to 
his conviction.  His punishment was unjust and has greatly 
affected his life.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 27 May 1981, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

On 13 May 1986, he was separated with a BCD.  He served 4 years, 
10 months and 7 days of active service.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Air Force Office of Special 
Investigation determined a criminal record does exist.

On 7 Apr 2014, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 
30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office. (Exhibit C).

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial.  JAJM states that upgrading the 
applicant’s BCD is not appropriate and recommends the Board deny 
the request as untimely or on the merits.  Ordinarily, an 
applicant must file an application within three years after an 
error or injustice is discovered or, with due diligence, should 
have been discovered.  His court-martial took place in 1985.  
The application for correction of military records was received 
on 8 Jul 2013.  The application is untimely.

On 30 Nov 1984, the applicant was found guilty by general court-
martial of committing perjury while testifying under oath at an 
18 July 1984 court-martial, a violation of Article 131, Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  The applicant was sentenced to 
confinement at hard labor for seven months, forfeiture of 
$200.00 per month for seven months and reduced to the grade of 
airman basic.

On 11 Mar 1985, the applicant was tried and convicted at a 
special court-martial.  He pled guilty to and was found guilty 
of wrongfully using cocaine and marijuana in violation of 
Article 134, UCMJ.  A military judge sentenced him to be 
discharged from the Air Force with a BCD, confined for 30 days, 
and to forfeit $200.00 pay per month for two months.  The 
convening authority later remitted the confinement and 
forfeitures, but the BCD was approved and executed. At the time 
of the 11 Mar 1985 special court-martial, the applicant was 
still serving confinement time from the previous court-martial.

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.  The 
court received evidence in aggravation, as well as in 
extenuation and mitigation, prior to crafting an appropriate 
sentence for the crime committed.  The court-martial took all of 
these factors into consideration when imposing the applicant's 
sentence.  Rule for Courts-Martial 1003(b) (8) (c) states that a 
BCD "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 BCD was well within legal limits. This 
discharge characterization was and continues to be part of a 
proper sentence and properly characterizes his service.

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He was not aware his application was untimely.  While JAJM 
states that a BCD is for bad conduct and more than merely a 
service characterization, all his charges stemmed from one 
incident.  This incident was not consistent with his character, 
job performance and career pursuits.  His duty performance was 
above average; he became a noncommissioned officer and wanted to 
become a commissioned officer.  A reduction in rank, fine and 
BCD for an isolated incident is obviously excessive, unfair and 
vindictive.

?
His complete response is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

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 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 noting the 
lack of 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.

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 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 AFBCMR BC-2013-
03229 in Executive Session on 6 May 2014, under the provisions 
of AFI 36-2603:

 , Panel Chair
 , Member
 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Jun 2013.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, digitally signed 4 Apr 2014,
                w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 9 Sep 2013.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Sep 2013.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Sep 2013.




                                    
                                   Panel Chair