RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01688 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His official records be corrected to update his Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) to Honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in over 14 years of active duty service with no other adverse action. He is unable to receive Veterans Benefits and the BCD has had a negative effect when he is seeking employment. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Air Force on 10 Apr 78. On 9 Mar 81, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully possessing marijuana. As punishment, the applicant was reduced to the grade of Airman First Class (suspended) and ordered to forfeit $50.00 of his pay per month for two months. On 19 Jun 92, the applicant, then a staff sergeant, was found guilty by a court-martial of wrongful use of marijuana on or between 6 Aug 91 and 6 Sep 91. As punishment, the applicant received a BCD and a reduction to the grade of Airman First Class. On 23 Sep 94, the applicant was furnished a BCD, and credited with 16 years, 5 months, and 14 days of active service. On 28 Oct 12, a request for post-service information 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 E). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence or an error or injustice. At a court-martial, before a panel of officer members, the applicant was found guilty of the wrongful use of marijuana. The applicant was sentenced to a BCD and reduction to airman first class. The applicant offers no allegation of injustice. The applicant alleges no error in the processing of the court-martial conviction against him. Upon the court’s finding of the applicant’s guilt, it received evidence in aggravation, as well as in extenuation and mitigation, prior to crafting an appropriate sentence for the crimes committed. The court members took all these factors into consideration when imposing the applicant’s sentence. Both the adjudged and the approved sentences were below the maximum possible sentence of a BCD. Rule for Courts-Martial 1003(b)(C) states that a BCD “is designed as punishment for bad conduct.” 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 whole a member of the armed forces. The applicant’s sentence to a BCD, and a reduction in rank, was well within the legal limits and was an appropriate punishment for the offense committed. It is noteworthy, however, that a review of the entire record of trial discloses the applicant had, in fact, received a prior Article 15 for nearly the exact same offense for which he was convicted; the wrongful possession of marijuana. Additionally, clemency in this case would not be fair 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 sacrifice, separations from family, facing hostile enemy action and suffering financial hardship. It would be an offense to all those who served honorably to extend the same benefits to someone who committed crimes such as the applicant’s while on active duty. Upgrading the applicant’s bad conduct discharge in not appropriate. A complete copy of the AFLOA/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 28 Jun 12 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 an 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), actions by this Board 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 conviction 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 have considered the applicant’s overall quality of service, the court-martial conviction which precipitated the discharge, and the seriousness of the offenses to which convicted. Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted. Therefore, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-01688 in Executive Session on 4 Dec 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-01688 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Apr 12. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 20 Jun 12. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jun 12. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Oct 12, w/atch. Panel Chair