Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-01729
Original file (BC-2012-01729.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-01729 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF:   
     
 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:  
 
His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He  has  fought  hard  to  become  a  productive  member  of  his 
community.    The  sentence  that  was  imposed  by  his  court-martial 
was harsh when compared to civilian counterparts who, should they 
commit  the  same  or  similar  offense,  do  not  lose  their  jobs  or 
source  of  retirement.    Prior  to  the  incident  that  led  to  his 
court-martial,  he  performed  exceptionally  while  serving  his 
country.   
 
A copy of the applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, 
is at Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 23 October 1998, the applicant, then a technical sergeant (E-
6),  was  tried  and  convicted  by  a  general  court-martial  for  one 
specification of wrongful use of cocaine in violation of Article 
112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  He was sentenced 
to  a  BCD  and  a  reduction  to  airman  first  class  (E-3).    On  5 
January  1999,  the  United  States  Court  of  Criminal  Appeals 
affirmed  the  court-martial  conviction.    On  7  October  1999,  he 
petitioned for a grant of review before the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Armed Forces; however, his request was denied, 
making the findings and sentence final and conclusive under the 
UCMJ.  As a result the applicant’s BCD was ordered to be executed 
on 18 November 1999.   
 
The applicant was discharged effective 11 January 2000 with a BCD 
and  a  narrative  reason  for  separation  of  “Court-Martial.”    He 
served 20 years, 4 months, and 18 days on active duty.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 

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 is a productive member of his community, 
the  punishment  was  severe,  and  otherwise  he  served  his  country 
honorably.  He alleges no error in the processing of the court-
martial  conviction  against  him.    The  applicant  pled  guilty  at 
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.   
 
Upon  the  court’s  finding  of  the  applicant’s  guilt,  it  received 
evidence  in  aggravation,  as  well  as  in  extenuation  and 
mitigation,  prior  to  crafting  an  appropriate  sentence  for  the 
crimes  committed.    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  dishonorable  discharge,  confinement  for 
five  years,  total  forfeitures  of  all  pay  and  allowances,  and 
reduction to the grade of airman (E-1). 
 
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  Veteran  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 19 June 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.  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 

 

 
2

applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In 
accordance with Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552(f), 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-2012-01729  in  Executive  Session  on  15  February  2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 

 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-01729 was considered: 
 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 May 12, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 15 Jun 12. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jun 12.  

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

   Panel Chair 
   Member 
   Member 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

Panel Chair 

 
3



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02290

    Original file (BC-2012-02290.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 10 January 1990, the United States Air Force Court of Military Review affirmed the applicant’s court-martial conviction. 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. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-01524

    Original file (BC-2012-01524.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. At the special court- martial and before a panel of officer members, consistent with his pleas, the applicant was found guilty of all three...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04070

    Original file (BC-2012-04070.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04070 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions) or an honorable discharge. JAJM states the applicant does not allege an error or injustice, rather he believes the discharge should be upgraded due to the amount of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01634

    Original file (BC-2012-01634.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    As noted by the military judge during his court-martial, he unknowingly downloaded the files, but afterwards did not take the due diligence to delete the illegal files. We note that this Board is without authority to reverse, set aside, or otherwise expunge a court-martial conviction. We considered upgrading the discharge on the basis of clemency; however, in view of the applicant’s overall quality of service, the court-martial conviction which precipitated the discharge and the limited...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00132

    Original file (BC-2013-00132.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00132 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded and his civilian records cleared. He was given military counsel and pled guilty to two uses of cocaine. The applicant’s response, with attachments is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02285

    Original file (BC-2011-02285.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The AFLOA/JAJM complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial noting the statements by the applicant's psychiatrist and her recent diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder is insufficient to justify a medical basis for discharge. The Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation and Air...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04547

    Original file (BC-2012-04547.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04547 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. It also indicates that a bad conduct discharge is more than merely a service characterization; it is a punishment for the crimes the individual committed while a member of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05280

    Original file (BC-2012-05280.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    At his court-martial, the applicant pled guilty to all charges and specifications. 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 absence of any documentation pertaining to his post-service activities. Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00736

    Original file (BC-2012-00736.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    We find no evidence which indicates the applicant’s service characterization, which had its basis in his conviction by general court-martial 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). _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2012-00736 in Executive Session on 4 Oct 12, under...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 02269

    Original file (BC 2012 02269.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02269 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general. Specifically, section 1552(f)(1) permits the correction of a record to reflect actions taken by a reviewing authority under the UCMJ. We note this Board is without authority to reverse, set...