RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00497
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO
		

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

It has been 22 years since he was discharged for a bad check.  
He had the funds to cover the check, but forgot to make the 
deposit.  He notified the business of his mistake, and was told 
they would hold the check until the next morning, however, the 
manager filed bad check charges against him before he could make 
the deposit.

He has served his punishment long enough and needs his discharge 
upgraded to obtain a government job related to his military 
training and a security clearance. 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of DD 
Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed 
Forces of the United States. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 Aug 81, 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 assault.  For this misconduct the applicant received 
30 days correctional custody.  

On 11 May 90, the applicant was tried by a Special Court-
Martial.  He pled guilty and was found guilty of one charge and 
four specifications of uttering four separate worthless checks 
totaling $240.00 in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.  He pled not 
guilty but was found guilty of two specifications of uttering 
two separate worthless checks totaling $300.00, in violation of 
Article 134, UCMJ.

He was sentenced to a BCD, confinement for 45 days, and 
reduction in grade to airman basic.  

On 31 May 90, the convening authority approved the findings and 
sentence.  On 2 Aug 90, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals 
affirmed the approved findings and sentence.  On 28 Nov 90, the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied the 
applicant’s petition for review.  On 31 May 91, the applicant’s 
BCD was ordered to be executed.  He served nine years, nine 
months and seven days of active duty service.  

On 21 Sep 92, the applicant applied for a review of his BCD to 
the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB).  On 13 Jan 94, the 
AFDRB considered and denied the applicant’s appeal.  On 8 Feb 
94, the applicant was notified of the AFDRB’s decision.  

On 6 Sep 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 several bad check specifications and 
was found guilty.  He pled not guilty to, but was found guilty 
of writing two additional bad checks.  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 asking for leniency and for a BCD in lieu of 
confinement.  

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 20 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).  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-2013-00497 in Executive Session on 15 Oct 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Jan 12, w/atch. 
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 4 Apr 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Apr 13.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Sep 13.




                                   Panel Chair