RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:			   DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04607

	 				   COUNSEL:  NONE

		                           HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge be upgraded.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has had multiple strokes and a hip replacement.  He is very 
sorry for what he did.  He embarrassed his squadron and 
apologizes for the trouble he caused. 

In support of the appeal, the applicant provides doctors notes.

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



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force on 5 April 1988. 
On 9 August 1989, he was convicted by general court-martial of 
four specifications of stealing property, in violation of 
Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and one 
specification of conspiring to steal currency, in violation of 
Article 81, UCMJ.  He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, 
confinement for one year, total forfeiture of pay and reduction 
to the grade of airman basic.  He was discharged 8 May 1990 with 
a bad conduct discharge. 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation indicated that on the basis of the information 
provided, they were able to locate an arrest record.

On 10 June 2014, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for response 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 applicant requests the Board 
upgrade his discharge.  In accordance with his pleas, a military 
judge found him guilty of violating Article 121, UCMJ and 
Article 81, UCMJ.  A panel of officer members sentenced him to a 
bad conduct discharge, one year confinement, total forfeitures 
of pay and to be reduced from E-4 to E-1.  On 9 August 1989, the 
convening authority approved the sentence.  

On 15 November 1983[sic], the Air Force Court of Military Review 
determined that the findings and sentence were correct in law 
and fact.  It found that there was no error prejudicial to the 
applicant’s substantial rights.  In its decision, the appellate 
court noted that the sentence was fairly lenient.  

On 14 February 1990, the Court of Military Appeals denied the 
applicants petition for grant of review.  On 3 April 1990, the 
convening authority ordered the applicant’s discharge executed.

Based on the military justice records in this case, there was no 
error or injustice with the court-martial process.

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation and a request for post-
service information was forwarded to the applicant for review 
and comment on 7 March 2014 and 7 June 2014 respectively 
(Exhibits D and E).  As of this date, this office has received 
no 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 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 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).  Based on the evidence of record, 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-04607 in Executive Session on 15 July 2014, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

 

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, 23 Sep 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records Excerpts.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 5 Dec 13. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 14.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 10 Jun 14.