RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03182
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The character statements he provides from the two people who see
him every day should be considered.
The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider
his untimely application because he has completed college and
has worked in the same job for two years.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of
character statements.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 9 January 2001, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.
According to General Court-Martial Order No. 20 dated
26 February 2003, the applicant pled and was found guilty of one
specifications of attempted possession of ecstasy and one
specification of attempted distribution of ecstasy, in violation
of Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), one
specification of wrongful use of methamphetamine and one
specification of wrongful use of marijuana, in violation of
Article 112a, UCMJ, and one specification of absence without
leave, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.
According to General Court-Martial Order No. 1 dated 4 October
2005, on 24 September 2002, a military judge sentenced the
applicant to be discharged with a BCD, to serve 20 months
confinement, to be reduced from the grade of airman first class
(E-3) to the grade of airman basic (E-1), and forfeiture of all
pay and allowances.
On 27 October 2005, he was separated with a BCD. He served
3 years, 9 months and 9 days of active service.
?
On 17 November 2014, 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.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. The punishment adjudged by the
panel of officer members and approved by the convening authority
was within the range of permissible punishments. The applicant
was afforded all his appellate rights. In accordance with
10 USC 1552(f), the Board has no authority to overturn the
court-martial conviction but may only on the basis of clemency,
correct the actions taken by the reviewing authorities, i.e.,
the sentence. In this case the applicant submitted two letters
as evidence in clemency, both from people who have known him for
the past two years. While the letters state they do not know of
any issues the applicant has had over the past two years, they
are both untimely and not sufficiently persuasive to overturn or
affect the decisions of the court.
The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 28 November 2014, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within
30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this
office (Exhibit D).
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, § 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 applicants 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 UCMJ. We considered upgrading
the discharge on the basis of clemency; however, based on the
court-martial conviction which precipitated the discharge, the
seriousness of the offenses of which he was 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.
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 9 April 2015, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2014-03182 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 July 2014, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 November 2014,
w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 4 November 2014.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 November 2014.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01237
In an undated letter the applicant states that he has had numerous positive accomplishments after his discharge from the Air Force. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While JAJM states his application is untimely, the changes in his life over the last 13 years show a greater impact, than if he filed within three 3 years. We considered upgrading the discharge on the basis...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03621
In accordance with 10 USC 1552(f), the Board has no authority to overturn the court-martial conviction but may only on the basis of clemency, correct the actions taken by the reviewing authorities, i.e., the sentence. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, the Board finds no evidence of an error or injustice occurred in the discharge processing. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00873
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00873 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded. Based on this error, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals overturned the individuals conviction and ordered a new trial. Further, we note the applicants case differs from U.S. v. Steen and; therefore,...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03857
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03857 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application is described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) which is included at Exhibit D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 04313
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04313 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded. Specifically, section 1552(f)(1) permits the correction of a record to reflect actions taken by a reviewing authority under the UCMJ. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03531
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice warranting upgrade of his BCD. We note that this Board is without authority to reverse, set aside, or otherwise expunge a court-martial conviction. We find no evidence which indicates the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01692
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. JAJM indicates that under Title 10, United States Code (USC), Section 1552(f), which amended the basic corrections board legislation, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) ability to correct records related to courts- martial, is limited. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03529
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03529 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to General (Under Honorable Conditions). As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E.) The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03229
JAJM states that upgrading the applicants BCD is not appropriate and recommends the Board deny the request as untimely or on the merits. It also indicates that a bad conduct discharge is more than merely a service characterization; it is a punishment for the crimes the applicant committed while a member of the armed forces. While JAJM states that a BCD is for bad conduct and more than merely a service characterization, all his charges stemmed from one incident.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00859
On 23 Feb 08, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals found that the approved findings and sentence were correct in law and fact. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denying the applicant's request due to untimeliness or on its merits indicating the applicant offers no allegations of an error or injustice, but only that he has learned from his mistakes and does not want the discharge to hinder his future. We find no evidence which indicates the applicants service characterization,...