RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02180
			COUNSEL:  NONE
			HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was informed that within 20 years of his discharge from the 
Air Force - he could change his characterization of service.

In support of the applicant’s appeal, he provides a DD Form 293, 
Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of 
the United States.

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 May 1981.

The applicant was tried and convicted by a special court-martial 
for wrongfully soliciting another airman to commit sodomy and 
assaulting another airman with the intent to commit sodomy, both 
in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice 
(UCMJ); and for burglary, in violation of Article 129, UCMJ.  He 
was found guilty and was sentenced to a BCD, confinement for six 
months, and a forfeiture of $200 pay per month for six months, 
and a reduction in grade to airman basic.

On 22 March 1984, the applicant was discharged in the grade of 
airman basic with a BCD under the provisions of Special Court-
Martial Order No. 14.  He served 11 months and 22 days on active 
duty.  His dates of time lost during this period were 7 May 
1982 through 7 October 1982.

________________________________________________________________
_



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial.  JAJM states the applicant alleges 
no injustice and error in the processing of the court-martial 
conviction against him.  At his court-martial - the applicant 
was found guilty of the charges.  The applicant was represented 
by military counsel and was afforded every right he was entitled 
to.

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 was well within legal limits.  
This discharge characterization was and continues to be part of 
a proper sentence and properly characterizes his service.

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 15 October 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 
30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been 
received by this office. 

________________________________________________________________
_

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; however, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Chief, Military Justice Division and adopt 
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  
Therefore, 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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an 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-2013-02180 in Executive Session on 16 January 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 April 2013, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 16 September 2013.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 October 2013.