RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00256 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was unjustly terminated from military service. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 3 October 2000. On 16 March 2002 the Commander, 27 Civil Engineering Squadron, recommended to the Commander, 27 Fighter Wing (27 FW/CC), that the applicant be recommended for discharge from the Air Force under AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208. This recommendation included that the applicant not be offered probation or rehabilitation. On 18 March 2002 the applicant was offered a Notification Memorandum, signed by the 27 FW/CC that recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 and AFPD 36-32. The specific reasons follow: a. On or about 27 June 2001, the applicant was recklessly operating a government operated vehicle off base and parking at his girlfriend’s house. It was also noted that he was derelict in performing his stand-by duties. For this misconduct he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR). b. On or about 27 July 2001, the applicant wrongfully appropriated an automobile through Auto World. For this misconduct he received a LOR. c. On or about 29 October 2001, he failed to report for duty wearing the proper rank insignia. For this misconduct he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15. d. On or about 18 July 2001 to on or about 31 October 2001, the applicant failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed. e. On or about 19 February 2002, the applicant made a false official statement to the first sergeant. For this misconduct he received a LOR. On 26 March 2002, the Staff Judge Advocate informed the 27 FW/CC that the discharge recommendation was sufficient. Special Court-Martial Order No. 10, dated 26 September 2002, found the applicant guilty of three charges of theft and unlawful entry. The sentence was adjudged by a military judge on 24 July 2002 with the applicant receiving a Bad Conduct Discharge and confinement for 8 months. On 19 October 2004, the applicant was furnished a bad conduct discharge, and was credited with 3 years, 5 months, and 26 days of active service. On 8 February 2015, a request for information pertaining to his post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit C). The applicant provided additional documentation that is at Exhibit D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant submits matters unrelated to the discharge upgrade request listed on his application. The applicant asserts that the cost to replace locks as the result of his crimes was considered in aggravation by the Court, but the Air Force never actually made those replacements. The applicant was not given a fine, nor was he ordered to pay for any lock repairs as a part of his court-martial sentence. The applicant was not charged with any crimes based upon the government having to change the locks on the doors. The applicant also provides a copy of an FBI report which he claims shows multiple errors regarding additional thefts or attempted thefts that were occurring on base and charged to him. According to the FBI’s published information on criminal background checks (www.fbi.gov), they will only make amendments to criminal background information if the request comes directly from the original reporting agency. The Air Force Office of Special Investigation (OSI) and Security Forces are the agencies that handle the tracking and reporting of criminal offenses to local and national authorities. The report attached appears to show the charges the applicant was investigated, charged, and convicted of in separate categories. Since Security Forces is the agency that handled the investigation in this case, THE applicant should direct any questions to said agency concerning errors. Here, the punishment adjudged and approved by the convening authority was within the range of permissible punishments. There is no evidence or claim that the applicant was not afforded all his appellate rights. In accordance with 10 USC 1552(f), the Board has no authority to overturn the court- marital conviction, but may only on the basis of clemency, correct the actions taken by the reviewing authorities, i.e., the sentence. In this case, the applicant submitted a letter of good character. The applicant also details his growth since leaving the Air Force in completing degrees and professional licenses. There is no new evidence that would negate the crimes he committed, nor bring into question the appropriateness of the sentence. Additionally, final action was taken in 2002, over 13 years ago, so the application is untimely. As a result, they recommend the Board not grant relief based on any error or injustice with the court-martial process. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 September 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). 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 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, the criminal background check, and the seriousness of the offenses to which convicted. However, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s post-service activities that would enable us to determine if his accomplishments since his discharge are sufficient to overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged, 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-2015-00256 in Executive Session on Thursday, 22 October 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00256 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 May 2014 and 31 January 2015, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 February 2015. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 February 2015, w/atchs. Exhibit E. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 11 August 2015. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 September 2015.