AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 

 
 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-02717 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  discharge  (UOTHC)  be 
upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He  was  young  and  immature  when  he  enlisted  in  the  Air  Force.  
Since  being  discharged  from  the  Air  Force  he  has  worked 
diligently to better his life and he is a productive citizen in 
his community. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on  7  January 
1975. 
 
The applicant was tried and convicted by a general court-martial 
for being absent without leave (AWOL), possession of marijuana, 
and  larceny  of  approximately  $2,600 in  personal  property  of 
another military member. 
 
He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement at hard 
labor for 10 months, and a forfeiture of $240.00 per month for 
10 months.  The convening authority approved the sentence. 
 
On appeal, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals set aside the 
findings  of  guilty  to  the  Article  92  offense  (possession  of 
marijuana) and dismissed the charge and specification. 
 
On  7  March  1977,  the  applicant  was  discharged  in  the  grade  of 
airman basic with a UOTHC discharge under the provisions of AFM 
39-12.  He served 1 year, 3 months and 21 days on active duty.  
His  dates  of  lost  time  consisted  of  30  October  1975  through 
15 November  1975;  19  January  1976  through  9  February  1976;  and 
27 April 1976 through 16 December 1976). 
 
 

 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFLOA/JAJM  recommends  denial.    JAJM  states  the  applicant  has 
identified  no  error  or  injustice  related  to  his  prosecution  or 
the sentence he received for his crimes. 
 
While it is laudable that the applicant has apparently turned his 
life around and has become a valuable and respected member of his 
community,  it  does  not  erase  his  past  criminal  conduct  or  make 
his bad conduct discharge any less appropriate.  To overturn his 
punishment would require the Board to substitute its judgment for 
that  rendered  by  the  court  and  the  convening  authority  over 
35 years ago when the facts and circumstances were fresh.  In a 
somewhat ironic twist, the applicant’s apparent development into 
a  prominent  and  influential  role  model  makes  it  even  more 
challenging to upgrade his discharge, as doing so will undermine 
the  deterrent  value  of  the  stigma  of  receiving  a  bad  conduct 
discharge for misconduct. 
 
The applicant’s desire to become more involved in his community 
and local VFW is commendable, but his request to join the ranks 
of  those  who  have  served  honorably  as  an  equal  by  erasing  the 
blemishes  from  his  own  record  would  diminish  the  service  and 
accomplishments of his fellow members.  The applicant’s time in 
military service was about two years, and a little less than half 
of that time was spent either AWOL or in confinement.  His record 
of  trial  reflects  that  he  washed  out  of  initial  technical 
training for poor performance and behavioral issues, and there is 
nothing  to  suggest  that  he  distinguished  himself  through  his 
service in any other manner.  In sum a bad conduct discharge was 
and continues to be a proper sentence and properly characterizes 
his service. 
 
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: 
 
The applicant states during the contested time frame he was very 
young  and  reckless.    He  never  received  help/counseling  to 
persuade him to change his way of life.  He has paid the price 
for the crimes committed and has diligently worked to better his 
life.    His  work  with  law  enforcement  and  other  community 
affiliations shows that he works at lengths to better himself and 

 

2 
 

to  help  others.    He  believes  if  the  military  had  rehabilitated 
and trained him, he would have become a better soldier. 
 
The applicant’s 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  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.  In 
accordance  with  10  USC  1552(f)(2),  we  considered  upgrading  the 
applicant’s  discharge  on  the  basis  of  clemency,  however,  there 
was  insufficient  evidence  submitted  to  compel  us  to  recommend 
granting the request on that basis.  Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought in this application. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
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. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number  BC-2012-02717  in  Executive  Session  on  12  February  2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-02717 was considered: 
 
   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 May 2012, w/atchs. 
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 23 August 2012. 

 

3 

   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 September 2012. 
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 December 2012. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

4