RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05069 

 

 COUNSEL: 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to Honorable. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His BCD was inequitable because it was based on one isolated 
incident with no adverse actions. He has moved on with his life 
and would like to move past this incident as the discharge is 
adversely effecting his employment and life. He has been the 
model representation of what an Air Force veteran should be 
since he was discharged from the Air Force. He has a wife and 
two children and is attending California State University Long 
Beach for a Bachelors Degree of Science in Electrical 
Engineering. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant initially entered the Air Force on 24 Jul 96. 

 

On 10 Nov 03, the applicant was furnished a BCD. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter 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 injustice. On 31 Oct 00, the applicant, then a 
senior airman, pled guilty to one specification of use of 
methamphetamine, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of 


Military Justice (UCMJ). The applicant was also charged with 
one specification of use of marijuana and one specification of 
use of heroin, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. The 
applicant was found guilty of the use of marijuana, but found 
not guilty of use of heroin and was sentenced to a BCD, 
confinement for seven months, forfeiture of all pay and 
allowances, and a reduction to the grade of E-1. On 16 Jan 01, 
the convening authority approved the findings and sentence of 
confinement for five months, reduction to the grade of E-1, 
forfeiture of all pay and allowances and a BCD. On 16 Feb 01, 
the Air Force Court of Military Appeals denied the applicant’s 
request for review, thus making his case final and conclusive 
under the UCMJ. As a result, the applicant’s BCD was ordered to 
be executed on 14 Jun 01. 

 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(f), which amended the basic corrections 
board legislation, the Board’s ability to correct records 
related to courts-martial is limited. Specifically, 
§ 1552(f)(1) permits the correction of a record to reflect 
actions taken by a reviewing authority under the UCMJ. 
Additionally, § 1552(f)(2) permits the correction of records 
related to action on the sentence of courts-martial for the 
purpose of clemency. Apart from these two limited exceptions, 
the Board is without authority to reverse, set aside, or 
otherwise expunge a court-martial conviction that occurred on or 
after 5 May 1950 (the effective date of the UCMJ). The 
applicant offers no allegation of injustice. He requests an 
upgrade to his BCD based upon who he is and his dedication to 
the Air Force and the United States. The applicant alleges no 
error in the processing of the court-martial conviction against 
him and his record of trial shows no error in processing the 
court-martial. The court received evidence in aggravation, as 
well as in extenuation and mitigation, prior to crafting an 
appropriate sentence for the crimes committed. An unsworn 
statement by the applicant in which he stated he regretted his 
actions was included in the evidence received by the court. The 
court members took all these factors into consideration when 
imposing the applicant’s sentence. 

 

Rule for Courts-Martial 1003(b)(C) states that a BCD “is 
designed as punishment for bad conduct.” It also indicates that 
a BCD is more than merely a service characterization; it is a 
punishment for the crimes the applicant committed while a member 
of the armed forces. The applicant’s sentence to a BCD, 
confinement for five months, forfeiture of all pay and 
allowances, and a reduction to E-1 was well within legal limits. 
A BCD was and continues to be part of a proper sentence and 
properly characterizes his service. Additionally, clemency in 
this case 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 sacrifice, separations from family, 
facing hostile enemy action and suffering financial hardship. 
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 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 BCD is not appropriate. 

 

A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 4 Jun 13, a copy of the Air Force advisory opinion and 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 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 took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case. 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 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. In the interest of justice, 
we considered upgrading his discharge on the basis of clemency; 
however, we do not find sufficient evidence concerning his post-
service activities to warrant relief on this basis. Therefore, 
we conclude that no basis exists for us to recommend granting 
the relief sought in this application. 

 

4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 


will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2012-05069 in Executive Session on 18 Jul 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Oct 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 19 Dec 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Jun 13, w/atch. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair