RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03615 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His general (under other than honorable conditions) [sic] 
discharge be upgraded to honorable. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His punishment was too severe. He was an alcoholic while he was 
in the Air Force and has been sober for 38 years and has not 
been in any trouble. He deserves a second chance. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 28 Mar 2013, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C), as of this date, no response has been received by 
this office. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states that upgrading the 
applicant’s BCD is not appropriate and recommends the Board deny 
the request as untimely or on the merits. JAJM states that 
ordinarily, an applicant must file an application within three 
years after an error or injustice is discovered or, with due 
diligence, should have been discovered. His court-martial took 
place in 1975 and the final action on his discharge was taken in 
1976. The application is untimely. 

 

In May 1975, the applicant, then an airman basic assigned to 
Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, was accused of stealing two 
separate vehicles. On the evening of 30 Apr 1975, an airman 


reported to security forces that his 1964 Buick, which he had 
parked outside of his barracks, was missing. Later that 
evening, a security forces member on his way to duty observed a 
one car accident off base. The security forces member stopped 
to render assistance and discovered the applicant in a 
1964 Buick. At the scene of the accident, the applicant 
appeared to be intoxicated and stated to the security forces 
member that it was his vehicle; although, he subsequently 
claimed that he had in fact borrowed the vehicle from a friend. 
The following day, security forces discovered that the vehicle 
driven by the applicant was the same Buick reported stolen the 
previous day. 

 

On 7 May 1975, a staff sergeant, who was working part-time off-
duty as a janitor, observed someone driving off with his 
janitorial van in an erratic manner. The staff sergeant 
reported this theft to security forces, who were then able to 
stop the van at the gate. The applicant was driving the van and 
alleged that three individuals had stolen the truck and that he 
beat them up, threw them out of the van, and was in the process 
of returning the van. A search of the installation revealed no 
one who fit the descriptions of these men provided by the 
applicant. 

 

On 11 Jun 1975, the applicant pled not guilty in a general 
court-martial to two specifications of larceny, in violation of 
Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). At the 
general court-martial and before a military judge alone, the 
applicant was found guilty of the charge and its specifications, 
contrary to his plea. The applicant was sentenced to a BCD, 
forfeiture of $175.00 pay per month for eleven months, and 
confined at hard labor for eleven months. On 1 Aug 1975, the 
convening authority approved the guilty finding as to the 
specification alleging the theft of the Buick, but disapproved 
the guilty finding as to the specification alleging the theft of 
the janitorial van. Additionally, the convening authority 
reduced the sentence to a BCD, confinement at hard labor for 
eight months, and forfeiture of $175.00 pay per month for eight 
months. On 23 Dec 1975, the Court of Military Review affirmed 
the findings and sentence as approved. On 29 Mar 1976, the 
United States Court of Military Appeals declined the applicant's 
petition for review, making the findings and sentence in his 
case final and conclusive under the UCMJ. As a result, the 
applicant's BCD was ordered to be executed on 7 May 1976. 

 

Clemency in this case 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 crimes such as the applicant’s while on 
active duty. 

 

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 28 Mar 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To 
date, a response has not been received (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 error or injustice. We note 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 conviction 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, the seriousness of the offenses of 
which convicted, and noting the lack of documentation pertaining 
to his post-service activities, we cannot conclude that clemency 
is warranted. In view of the above, we cannot recommend 
approval based on the current evidence of record. 

 

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 issue(s) 
involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


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 this application 
in Executive Session on 21 May 2013, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Aug 2012, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Mar 2013. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 11 Oct 2012. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Mar 2013, w/atch. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair