RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01367
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO
		

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable 
discharge. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was unjust due to the lack of experience of his 
defense counsel, the improper advice given to plead guilty, and 
the interference of his first sergeant.  

He has been a “model citizen” since his discharge from the Air 
Force.

He needs his discharge upgraded so he can use the GI Bill to pay 
for his higher education.

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, letters of support and certificates. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 21 Feb 96, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 

Prior to his court-martial the applicant received non-judicial 
punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice 
(UCMJ), for failure to go and dereliction of duty.  The 
applicant consulted counsel, and waived his right to demand 
trial by court-martial.  He submitted written matters in his own 
behalf and made a personal appearance.  The commander determined 
he committed the offense alleged and imposed punishment 
consisting of reduction to the grade of airman first class, 
forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for two months and 30 days 
extra duty. 

On 18 Mar 03, the applicant was tried by a General Court-
Martial.  He pled guilty and was found guilty of use and 
distribution of cocaine, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ.  He 
pled not guilty but was found guilty of use and distribution of 
ecstasy and distribution of marijuana, in violation of Article 
112a, UCMJ.  

He was sentenced to a BCD, confinement for 16 months, and 
reduction in grade to airman basic.  

On 23 Apr 03, the convening authority approved the findings and 
sentence.  On 1 Jun 05, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals 
(AFCCA) affirmed the approved findings and sentence.  During his 
appeal, the applicant alleged his civilian and military counsel 
were ineffective.  On 26 Jan 06, the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Armed Forces denied the applicant’s petition for 
review.  On 28 Feb 06, the applicant’s BCD was ordered to be 
executed.  He served 8 years, 8 months and 18 days of active 
duty 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).  

In response to the request, the applicant states he regrets that 
his actions discredited his name, command group and Keesler Air 
Force Base.  During his confinement he learned some valuable 
lessons; he became a better person, father, leader and spiritual 
individual.  He will graduate in Sep 14, with a Bachelor’s 
degree in Information Systems Cybernet Security from ITT 
Technical Institute.  He is working and attending school full-
time, while maintaining a 3.94 grade point average.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

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.  He does allege ineffective 
assistance of counsel which is the same argument he put forth to 
the AFCCA.  At his court-martial, the applicant pled guilty to 
use and distribution of cocaine and was found guilty.  The 
applicant pled not guilty to, but was found guilty of use and 
distribution of ecstasy and distribution of marijuana.  The 
government provided several eye witnesses to the use and 
distribution and the applicant’s counsel completed extensive 
cross-examination of all these witnesses.  During findings, the 
applicant testified under oath denying the use and distribution 
he pled not guilty to.  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 taking full 
responsibility for his mistakes and hoping to become stronger in 
the future.  

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 25 Apr 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).  The applicant provided a 
personal statement, character references, certificates, and 
copies his college transcripts in support of his appeal to have 
his discharge upgraded based on clemency.  While we commend the 
applicant on his many accomplishments, when considering his 
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-2013-01367 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 11 Mar 13, w/atchs. 
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Personnel Records. 
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 18 Apr 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 13.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Nov 13.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs. 




                                   
                                   Panel Chair