RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03792 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general court-martial conviction under Article l20, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), be set aside and removed from his records. In the alternative, the Board replace the conviction under Article 120, UCMJ with Article 134, UCMJ. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He pled guilty and was convicted by a military judge of desertion, making a false official statement, wrongful use of marijuana and aggravated sexual assault. He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for 22 months, total forfeiture of all pay and allowances and reduction to E-1. He was released from confinement and returned to his home in Shreveport, Louisiana. His plea of guilty to the charge of Article 120 was that he engaged in a sexual act with a person who had attained the age of 12 years, but had not attained the age of 16 years. The person was his girlfriend and because she was only 15 years and 11 months old, she did not have the capacity, under the law to consent to having sexual intercourse. While the law does not recognize, they both consented to their actions. His plea of guilty to having intercourse with his then girlfriend has far reaching consequences. He will be required to register as a sex offender. The law draws an arbitrary line at age 16. Had their actions occurred a week or two later, he would not be required to register as a sex offender. The Article 120 conviction is unjust and has far reaching consequences due to the sex offender requirement that accompanies such a conviction. Sex offender registry may be the most significantly stigmatizing and long lasting effect arising from the court-martial; even more so than the bad conduct discharge. He will be forced to register with authorities as sex offenders where he resides, work or go to school. Down the road, when he wants to watch his child’s soccer game or go to a parent teacher conference, he will be prohibited due to his sex offender status. He requests the Board consider and evaluate the victim impact statement and consider the support he received from his then girlfriend and her father. His case is not the case of a sex offender. He requests the conviction under Article 120 be set aside, or replaced with Article 134. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Air Force. On 14 August 2013, pursuant to his pleas, he was found guilty of desertion, in violation of Article 85, UCMJ, making a false official statement, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ, wrongful use of marijuana, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ and engaging in a sexual act with a person who had attained the age of 12, but not yet attained the age of 16, in violation of Article 120, UCMJ. 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. A general court-martial composed of a military judge convicted the applicant, pursuant to his pleas of desertion, making a false official statement, wrongful use of marijuana, and aggravated sexual assault in violation of Articles 85, 107, 112a and 120 of the UCMJ on 14 August 2013. The applicant was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for 22 months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and a reduction to airman basic. The conviction and sentence, with the exception of the bad conduct discharge, was approved by the Convening Authority on 9 October 2013. The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and the sentence on 17 July 2014. Although the applicant was found guilty of multiple UCMJ violations, his request is based on the Article 120 offense. In pleading guilty to this offense, the applicant admitted that he had sexual intercourse with his girlfriend at the time in June of 2012, when she was 15 years old. She turned sixteen in July of 2012. The applicant met his girlfriend when he was a senior in high school and he was 19 years old at the time of the offense. The applicant has claimed that the Article 120 conviction has far reaching consequences because he will have to register as a sex offender even though his girlfriend would have turned sixteen the following month after the sexual intercourse. The applicant has attached character statements from his girlfriend and her father. In accordance with 10 USC 1552(f), the Board has no authority to remove the Article 120 court-martial conviction from the applicant’s records nor can it change it to an Article 134 conviction. The Board may only on the basis of clemency, correct the actions taken by the reviewing authorities, i.e., the sentence. Since the Board is unable to grant the applicant’s request, we recommend that it be denied. The complete AFLO/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 9 February 2015 (Exhibit D) for review and comment within 30 days. 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 timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice that would warrant action by this Board. 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 UCMJ. Therefore, the applicant’s request is not favorably considered. 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-2014-03792 in Executive Session on 30 April 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Sep 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 4 Dec 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Feb 15.