RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01459
		COUNSEL: NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO
		

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be downgraded {sic}. 

2.  He be granted the ability to acquire a security clearance.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He understands the value of being punished for his actions; 
however, he believes that the punishment was severe.  He has 
learned his lesson and has since become a valuable asset to 
society.  

He would like to be able to obtain a security clearance so he 
can get federal employment but cannot get one with a BCD. 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided copies of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty and General Court-Martial Order 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 13 Nov 92, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 

On 18 Jan 95, the applicant was tried by a General Court-
Martial.  He pled guilty and was found guilty of 
18 specifications of stealing a total of $4,048.19 from the Army 
Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) all violations of Article 
121, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and of attempting 
to steal another $259.00 from AAFES, in violation of Article 80, 
UCMJ.  He was sentenced to a BCD, confinement for 16 months, 
forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction in grade to 
airman basic.  

On 20 Apr 95, the convening authority approved the findings and 
sentence.  The applicant appealed to the Air Force Court of 
Criminal Appeals (AFCCA).  On 28 Feb 96, the AFCCA dismissed two 
of the theft specifications the applicant had been found guilty 
of and reassessed the sentence.  The new sentence, per the 
AFCCA, was a BCD, confinement for 14 months, forfeiture of all 
pay and allowances, and reduction in grade to airman basic.  On 
16 Jul 96, the applicant’s petition to the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Armed Forces was reviewed and denied.  

On 9 Aug 96, the convening authority ordered the applicant’s BCD 
to be executed.  On 23 Aug 96, the applicant was discharged in 
the grade of airman basic.  He served 2 years, 8 months and 
13 days of total active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial.  JAJM states that the applicant 
alleges no injustice and no error 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 and was found guilty 
of all the charges.  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 stated he was not a 
bad person, he was sorry, and that he learned his lesson from 
his mistake.  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 19 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.  We also note the applicant requests 
he be granted the ability to acquire a security clearance; 
however, this is not a request that falls within the purview of 
the Board.  Therefore, in view of the above and in the absence 
of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend 
granting the relief sought in this application. 

_________________________________________________________________

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-2013-01459 in Executive Session on 27 Jan 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-01459 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 20 Mar 13 and 5 Apr 13, 
                w/atchs. 
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Personnel Records. 
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 15 May 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 May 13




								
								Panel Chair