RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 

 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-01524 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
     
 
_____________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:  
 
His  bad  conduct  discharge  (BCD)  be  upgraded  to  a  Under  Other  Than 
Honorable Condition (UOTHC) discharge.   
 
_____________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
For the past 28 years since his discharge, he has regretted making 
the mistakes that led to his discharge.  He has led an honorable life 
since leaving the service.   
 
The applicant does not provide any evidence in support of his appeal.   
 
A copy of the applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 
 
_____________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 24 July 1985, the applicant, then an airman first class (E-2), was 
tried and convicted by special court-martial for three specifications 
of wrongful distribution of marijuana in violation of Article 112a, 
Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ).    At  the  special  court-
martial  and  before  a  panel  of  officer  members,  consistent  with  his 
pleas,  the  applicant  was  found  guilty  of  all  three  specifications.  
He was sentenced to a BCD, confinement for six months, forfeiture of 
$200  pay  per  month  for  six  months,  and  reduction  to  the  grade  of 
airman  basic  (E-1).    On  4  September  1985,  the  convening  authority 
approved the sentence as adjudged.  On 17 October 1985, the Air Force 
Court  of  Military  Review  affirmed  the  applicant’s  court-martial 
conviction.  The applicant did not submit a timely petition to the 
United States Court of Military Appeals for a grant of review of the 
decision  of  the  Court  of  Military  Review  making  the  findings  and 
sentence in his case final and conclusive under the UCMJ.   
 
The  applicant  was  discharged  effective  24  December  1985  with  a  BCD 
and a narrative reason for separation of “Conviction by Court-Martial 
(Other than Desertion).”  He served 3 years, 2 months, and 15 days on 
active  duty  with  lost  time  from  24  July  1985  through  24  December 
1985.  
 

On 15 January 2013, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit 
comments about his post service activities (Exhibit E).  In response, 
the applicant provided three unsigned character references.   
 
_____________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFLOA/JAJM  recommends  denial.    JAJM  states  the  applicant  offers  no 
allegation  of  error  or  injustice.    He  simply  requests  his  BCD  be 
upgraded because he regrets the mistakes he made 28 years ago and his 
conduct  and  appreciation  for  his  country  have  been  honorable  ever 
since.  The record of trial shows no error in the processing of the 
court-martial.  The applicant pled guilty at trial to the charge and 
specifications.  Prior to accepting his guilty plea, as evidenced by 
the  record  of  trial,  the  military  judge  ensured  the  applicant 
understood  the  meaning  and  effect  of  his  plea  and  the  maximum 
punishment that could be imposed if his guilty plea was accepted by 
the court.  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.    On  the 
court’s  acceptance  of  the  applicant’s  guilty  plea,  it  received 
evidence  in  aggravation,  as  well  as  in  extenuation  and  mitigation, 
prior to crafting an appropriate sentence for the crimes committed.  
The members of the panel took all of these factors into consideration 
when  imposing  the  applicant’s  sentence.    Both  the  adjudged  and  the 
approved sentences were below the maximum possible sentence of a BCD, 
confinement  for  six  months,  forfeiture  of  two-thirds  pay  per  month 
for six months, and reduction to the grade of airman basic.   
 
It is JAJM’s opinion that clemency in this case would be unfair to 
those  individuals  who  honorably  served  their  country  while  in 
uniform.    It  addition,  it  would  be  offensive  to  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: 
 
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 
8 August 2012, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As 
of this date, this office has received no response. 
 
_____________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law 
or regulations. 
 

 

 
2 

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  Air 
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the 
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim 
of an error or injustice.  In the interest of justice, we considered 
upgrading  the  discharge  based  on  clemency;  however,  we  do  not  find 
the  evidence  presented  is  sufficient  to  compel  us  to  recommend 
granting the relief sought on that basis.  Therefore, in the absence 
of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend 
granting the relief sought.   
 
_____________________________________________________________________ 
 
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-2012-01524  in  Executive  Session  on  12  February  2013,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2012-01524 was considered: 
 

 

 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Apr 12. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 10 Jul 12. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Aug 12.  
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Jan 13, w/atch.  
Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Jan 13, w/atchs.  

 
 
 
 
 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

3