RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00924
		COUNSEL: NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO
		

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He never disputed the charges against him.  Since his discharge 
some 21 years ago, he has never been in any kind of trouble.  He 
does not use drugs; it was a one-time mistake that was foolish.  
He has paid for the lesson and learned from the experience. 

He is 45 years old and fully understands the ramifications of 
his actions.  He is ashamed and embarrassed to discuss his past 
with anyone.  

He is an active member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), 
American Legion, the Moose Lodge and recently was accepted to 
become a Freemason.  

The applicant did not provide any documents in support of his 
request. 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 13 Aug 85, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 

On 16 Oct 89, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) 
for wrongfully taking a blanket in violation of Article 
121 (Larceny and Wrongful Appropriation), Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ).  For this misconduct the commander 
established an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) and filed the 
LOR in the UIF.  

On 30 May 91, the applicant was tried by a Special Court-
Martial.  He was charged with violation of Article 112a 
(Wrongful Use, Possession of a Controlled Substance), UCMJ.  He 
pled guilty and was found guilty of use and distribution of 
marijuana in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ.  He was sentenced 
to a BCD, confinement for 70 days, forfeiture of $250.00 pay per 
month for three months and reduction in grade to airman basic.  

On 18 Jun 91, the convening authority approved the findings and 
sentence.

On 9 Sep 91, the Air Force Court of Military Review affirmed the 
findings and sentence.  On 10 Dec 91, the applicant’s petition 
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces was 
reviewed and denied.  

On 13 Feb 92, the convening authority ordered the applicant’s 
BCD to be executed.  He served 6 years, 6 months and 13 days of 
total active service

On 7 Nov 13, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an 
opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities 
since leaving the service (Exhibit E).  As of this date, no 
response has been received by this office. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial.  JAJM states that the applicant 
alleges no error in the processing of the court-martial 
conviction against him and his record of trial shows no error in 
the processing of the court-martial.  At his court-martial, the 
applicant pled guilty to use and distribution of marijuana and 
was found guilty.  This use and distribution was with other 
airmen.  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 made an 
unsworn statement on his behalf and simply stated he was sorry.  
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 crimes, such as the applicant 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 10 May 13, 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, we cannot conclude 
that clemency is warranted.  In view of the above, we cannot 
recommend approval based on the current evidence of record.  

_________________________________________________________________

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-2013-00924 in Executive Session on 17 Dec 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Feb 13. 
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records. 
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 2 May 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 13




								
                                   Panel Chair