AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 

 
 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-02624 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
The  alleged  misuse  of  his  assigned  Government  American  Express 
Card  was  totally  false.    He  was  told  he  could  use  it  on  his 
travels.  He was held accountable for two bad checks which were 
paid.  He believes false allegations were made against him.  He 
was  coerced  into  pleading  guilty,  forced  to  sign  a  plea 
agreement,  and  was  represented  by  an  inexperienced  court 
appointed attorney. 
 
The applicant provides no documentation in support of his appeal. 
 
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on  9  September 
1992. 
 
The applicant was tried and convicted by a general court-martial 
for  the  misuse  of  his  government  travel  card,  writing  multiple 
checks  with  insufficient  funds  to  pay,  and  using  the  name  and 
social  security  number  of  another  military  member  to  open  a 
fraudulent credit card account. 
 
He  was  sentenced  to  a  bad  conduct  discharge,  confinement  for 
15 months,  and  a  reduction  in  grade  to  airman  basic.    On 
26 August  1996,  the  convening  authority  approved  the  adjudged 
sentence.    On  appeal,  the  applicant  raised  certain  issues 
regarding reduction in rank prior to convening authority action 
and the imposition of automatic forfeitures pursuant to Articles 
57(a)  and  58(b)  of  the  UCMJ,  respectively,  but  neither  his 
findings  nor  sentence  were  challenged.    On  7  July  1998,  the 
applicant’s appellate review was completed and his findings and 
sentence were affirmed.  A final court-martial order was issued 
 
 

on  4  August  1998  restoring  lost  pay  and  allowances  through 
premature  reduction  in  grade  and  forfeitures,  but  his  findings 
and sentence were executed as adjudged. 
 
On 14 August 1998, the applicant was discharged in the grade of 
airman  basic  with  a  BCD  under  the  provisions  of  General  Court-
Martial  Order  Number  160.    He  served  4 years,  10  months  and 
27 days  on  active  duty.    His  dates  of  lost  time  consisted  of 
23 April 1996 through 1 May 1997. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial.  JAJM states the applicant offers 
no  specific  allegation  of  injustice  or  any  documentation  to 
support his claims of having been coerced or forced into pleading 
guilty to the charges against him.  To the contrary, his record 
of  trial  clearly  establishes  that  he  freely  and  willingly  pled 
guilty because he believed that he committed the offenses he was 
charged  with  and  his  responses  to  the  judge’s  care  inquiry 
questions  stand  in  direct  opposition  to  the  allegations  in  his 
petition.    Furthermore,  his  guilty  pleas  are  corroborated  by 
ample evidence in the record of trial of his misconduct.  Neither 
the  findings  nor  sentence  were  challenged  after  trial  or  on 
appeal, and both were found to be correct in law and fact by the 
Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, and the result of trial was 
affirmed  by  the  U.S.  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Armed  Forces.  
Thus,  the  outcome  of  the  applicant’s  trial  should  remain 
undisturbed  due  to  the  absence  of  any  new  information  or  clear 
demonstration of error. 
 
Clemency  may  be  granted,  but  aside  from  his  assertion  that  his 
BCD  has  tremendously  affected  his  life,  the  applicant  has  not 
provided any information to support clemency by the Board.  The 
applicant’s sentence and punishment was within legal limits and 
the terms of the applicant’s pretrial agreement.  To modify his 
punishment now would require the Board to substitute its judgment 
for that rendered by the court and the convening authority nearly 
15 years ago when the facts and circumstances were fresh. 
 
Additional  clemency  in  this  case  would  be  unfair  to  those 
individuals who honorably served their country while in uniform.  
Upgrading the applicant’s discharge is not appropriate. 
 
The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

2 
 

 
On  30  August  2012,  a  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days 
(Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
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 Chief, Military Justice Division and adopt 
their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the 
applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this 
application. 
 
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  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  an  error  or  injustice;  the 
application  was  denied  without  a  personal  appearance;  and  the 
application  will  only  be  reconsidered  upon  the  submission  of 
newly  discovered  relevant  evidence  not  considered  with  this 
application. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

3 

The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number  BC-2012-02624  in  Executive  Session  on  23  January  2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-02624 was considered: 
 
   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 June 2012. 
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 22 August 2012. 
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 August 2012. 
 
 
 
 
 

 

4