RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04589
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to general (under
honorable conditions) discharge or honorable.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Based on his earlier faithful service to the Air Force for
16 years, he feels he served his country with more outstanding
service than the way he represented the uniform the last two
years of his service. During the last two years he had an
illness.
His faithful service can be proven with all of his achievements
starting with his three Commendation Medals, two Air Force
Achievement Medals and four Air Force Good Conduct Medals. He
put his country before his familys needs when called to do so,
for instance he departed for OPERATION DESERT STORM while his
wife was pregnant with his second child.
He recounts his assignments to Vandenberg Air Force Base,
California and how he was awarded Airman of the Quarter on
several occasions. He also established the squadrons first ever
honor guard.
While stationed in San Antonio, Texas he was awarded the Air
Force Achievement Medal and hand-selected to attend the Order of
the Sword. He also received the Outstanding Unit Award, the
Organizational Excellence Award and the Air Force Commendation
Medal (first Oak Leaf Cluster).
His tour in Turkey was difficult from the beginning. He had to
return to Texas on emergency leave after his wife was told their
son may not survive from respitory problems following his birth.
He wanted to remain in Texas and take care of them; however, he
had to return to Turkey to finish his assignment.
In November 1996, he began a downward spiral and had an
inexplicable illness that ended his 16 years of outstanding
service. Had he not been ill and received proper treatment, he
would have continued to serve his country well.
The applicants complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force on 12 October
1989. On 9 June 1998 he was convicted, pursuant to his guilty
plea, of stealing 9 Sony PlayStation games, in violation of
Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and of
being absent without authority from 1 April 1998 until 17 April
1998, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. He was sentenced to a
bad conduct discharge, confinement for five months and reduction
to airman basic. However, only so much of the sentence that
provided for a bad conduct discharge, confinement for four
months and reduction to airman basic was approved. The
applicant was discharged on 7 September 1999, with a bad conduct
discharge.
Pursuant to the Boards request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation indicated that on the basis of the information
provided, they were able to locate an arrest record.
In response to a request for post-service information, the
applicant submitted a copy of his FBI report. Additionally, he
recounts his service and the personal difficulties that caused
him to go down the wrong path with substance abuse. He humbly
requests the Board consider upgrading his discharge.
The applicants complete response, with attachments, is at
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 applicants 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, the seriousness of the offenses to
which convicted and the matters submitted by the applicant.
Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that
clemency is warranted. In view of the above, we cannot
recommend approval based on the 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 issues 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 Docket
Number BC-2013-04589 in Executive Session on 15 July 2014 and
10 November 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Sep 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Record Excerpts.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 10 Jun 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicants Response, dated 8 Jul 14,
w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00381
He pled and was found guilty, and was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for 2 months, and reduction in grade to airman basic. The applicant was separated with a bad conduct discharge on 16 April 1999. The applicant’s bad conduct discharge had its basis in his trial and conviction by a general court- martial and he has provided no evidence showing that the sentence exceeded the maximum punishment allowable based on the offense of which he was convicted.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03784
On 6 June 2000, the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) approved the findings and sentence as correct in law and fact. JAJM states that under 10 USC Section 1552(f), which amended the basic corrections board legislation, the Air Force Board for Corrections of Military Record’s (AFBCMR) ability to correct records related to courts-martial is limited. JAJM states that the applicant is not contending that a specific error has occurred which requires the correction of his...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-000262
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00262 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 JUNE 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His court-marital conviction and bad conduct discharge be mitigated to an administrative discharge. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
On 18 December 1987, the general court-martial approving authority approved only so much of the adjudged sentence which provided for a bad conduct discharge, 14 months of confinement, reduction to airman basic, and forfeiture of $438 per month for 14 months. On 23 February 1988, the Air Force Court of Military Review found the approved findings of guilty and the sentence to be correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, affirmed the 2 AFBCMR 96-02123 same. On 29...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03827
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After almost 10 years, he deserves a chance at a successful life and a general discharge. On 21 October 1997, he pled guilty and was sentenced by a general court- martial for, between on or about 8 June 1997, and on or about 16 June 1997, wrongfully using cocaine. Title 10, United States Code, limits the Board’s ability to correct records relating to courts-martial to correction of a record to reflect...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes his dishonorable discharge was improper and harsh since it was during a time period of 1 year and 5 months of service with no other criminal record. Applicant pled guilty to all charges except Charge I, and all specifications except specifications 2 and 3 of Charge IV. A complete copy of the FBI Report is attached at Exhibit...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00936 INDEX NUMBER:106.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Other facts surrounding his discharge from the Air Force are unknown inasmuch as the complete discharge correspondence is not available. Applicant submitted a brief summary of his...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00960
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00960 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His court-martial conviction be overturned, his rank and retirement be restored, and his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to honorable. He did not live with his wife or provide support to her during the relevant time period. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02021
His official records be corrected to update his Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) to General (Under Honorable Conditions). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. We find no evidence...
On 16 October 1957, applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic, under the provisions of AFR 39-18 (Court Conviction), and received a bad conduct discharge. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.