AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02845 
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  only  made  one  mistake  in  his  15  year  Air  Force  career;  he 
should have been given a chance for rehabilitation; one mistake 
should not scar him for life, and he needs to regain his veteran 
benefits.   
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 3 May 83, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.  
 
On 24 May 88, the applicant was tried and convicted by a general 
court-martial for one specification of drug abuse, in violation 
of Article 112, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  He was 
sentenced  to  a  BCD,  confinement  for  15  months,  reduction  in 
grade  to  airman  basic  (E-1),  and  forfeiture  of  $200  pay  per 
month for 15 months.   
 
On  24  May  88,  the  convening  authority  approved  the  sentence  as 
adjudged.    On  11  Aug  88,  the  United  States  Air  Force  Court  of 
Military Review approved and affirmed the findings and sentence.  
The applicant declined to appeal the Air Force Court of Military 
Review’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Armed Forces, making the findings and sentence in his case final 
and  conclusive  under  the  UCMJ.    On  17  Jan  89,  the  applicant’s 
BCD was ordered to be executed.  He served 14 years and 13 days 
of total active duty. 
 
On  14  Dec  12,  the  AFBCMR  staff  offered  the  applicant  an 
opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities 
since leaving the service (Exhibit E).   
 

In  response  to  the  request,  the  applicant  provided  a  personal 
statement.    The  applicant  states  that  prior  to  being  court-
martialed  he  was  an  outstanding  noncommissioned  officer  (NCO).  
He  admits  he  made  a  mistake;  however,  he  believes  everyone 
should  be  given  a  second  chance.    He  has  tried  to  be  an 
upstanding member of the community.   
 
The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFLOA/JAJM  recommends  denial  based  on  the  application  being 
untimely  and  also  on  its  merits.    JAJM  states  the  applicant 
offers  no  allegation  of  injustice.    He  simply  requests  an 
upgrade to his BCD because in his mind, it was a onetime mistake 
that  should  not  scar  him  for  the  rest  of  his  life.    The 
applicant  alleges  no  error  in  the  processing  of  the  general 
court-martial  conviction  against  him  and  his  record  of  trial 
shows  no  error  in  the  processing  of  the  court-martial.    In 
addition,  he  pled  guilty  at  trial.    The  applicant,  who  was 
represented  by  military  counsel,  had  the  opportunity  to  demand 
the  government  prove  the  offenses  against  him.    The  court 
received evidence in aggravation, as well as in extenuation and 
mitigation,  prior  to  crafting  an  appropriate  sentence  for  the 
crimes committed.   
 
The  applicant’s  sentence  to  a  BCD,  confinement  for  15  months, 
forfeiture of $200 pay per month for 15 months, and a reduction 
to  the  grade  of  E-1  was  both  well  within  the  legal  limits  and 
was appropriate punishment for the offense committed.  A BCD was 
the terms of the applicant’s pretrial agreement.  A BCD was and 
continues  to  be  part  of  a  proper  sentence  and  properly 
characterizes his service.   
 
Granting  clemency  in  this  case,  in  the  form  of  upgrading  his 
discharge characterization, would be unfair to those individuals 
who  honorably  served  their  country  while  in  uniform.  Congress’ 
intent  in  setting  up  the  Veterans’  Benefits  program  was  to 
express  thanks  for  veterans’  personal  sacrifices,  separations 
from family, facing hostile enemy action and suffering financial 
hardships.  All  rights  of  a  veteran  under  the  laws  administered 
by  the  Secretary  of  Veterans  Affairs  are  barred  where  the 
veteran was discharged or dismissed by reason of the sentence of 
a general court-martial. This makes sense if the benefit program 
is  to  have  any  real  value.  It  would  be  offensive  to  all  those 
who served honorably to extend the same benefits to someone who 
committed a crime, such as the applicant while on active duty.  
 
 
 

 
 

2 

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  25  Sep  12,  for  review  and  comment  within  30  days 
(Exhibit  D).    As  of  this  date,  this  office  has  not  received  a 
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  error  or  injustice.    We  note  that 
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  applicant’s  service 
characterization,  which  had  its  basis  in  his  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).    We  considered  upgrading  the 
discharge  on  the  basis  of  clemency;  however,  after  considering 
the  applicant's  overall  quality  of  service,  the  court-martial 
conviction which precipitated the discharge, and the seriousness 
of  the  offense  of  which  convicted,  we  cannot  conclude  that 
clemency  is  warranted.    In  view  of  the  above,  we  cannot 
recommend approval based on the current evidence of record.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

3 

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  Docket  Number    
BC-2012-02845  in  Executive  Session  on  7  Mar  13,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
Panel Chair 
 
Member 
Member 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jun 12, w/atch. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 17 Sep 12. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Sep 12.  
 
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 14 Dec 12. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Panel Chair 

  
  
  

  
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

4