RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04214 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to general under honorable conditions. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was given an unfair discharge that was not representative of his service. He, like many American’s, finds it hard to secure a job in these tough economic times and having a bad conduct discharge is creating an undue hardship. For three years his conduct was exemplarily. He was nominated for Airman Below the Zone and was the first runner up for the John Levitow award. He was given this punishment because his unit was embarrassed and even the inconsequential participants were harshly judged. His punishment was out of the ordinary for someone who was removed from the incident. He was barely old enough to be considered an adult at the time of the incident and it seems unfair he should still pay for a mistake he made 25 years ago. He asks the Board’s utmost consideration in upgrading his discharge. In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force on 23 April 1985. The applicant was convicted of violating Article 134, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, by a general court-martial. He was found guilty of wrongfully soliciting another Airman to steal a computer and wrongfully buying stolen property. On 14 February 1989, he was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for four months, forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for four months and reduction to the grade of airman basic. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia provided a copy of an investigation report (Exhibit C). ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. Ordinarily, the appeal must be filed within three years after an error or injustice is discovered, or should have been discovered. The applicant’s court-martial took place in 1989, therefore, the application is untimely. The Rules for Court-Martial (RCM) states that a bad conduct discharge is designed as a punishment for bad conduct. The RCM also indicates it is more than a service characterization; it is punishment for crimes committed while serving as a member of the armed forces. The applicant’s punishment was well within the legal limits and was an appropriate punishment for the offenses committed. 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 veteran’s personal sacrifices. All the rights of a veteran under the laws are barred when the veteran is discharged or dismissed by reason of the sentence of a general court-martial. It would be offensive to all those who served honorably to extend those rights to someone who committed crimes such as the applicant. The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response to the JAJM advisory, the applicant indicates that his case involved a group of criminals that willingly participated in breaking and entering and stealing and and one was given an other than honorable discharges. His discharge was harsher, so hefails to see how this is justice. Additionally the applicant responded by letter to a request for post-service information and provided a summary of his actions since leaving service. He indicates he worked in the social services field from 1995 to 2004 as a direct care counselor for at risk youth. He, along with others victimized by gun violence, helped introduce The Fix Gun Checks Act to congress. He also worked as a veteran’s assistant while attending college. He states he has not been perfect since leaving active duty but has tried to remain a productive citizen through several difficult situations. He made a mistake at a very young age and would like to put it behind him. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ 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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we find no evidence which indicates the applicant’s service characterization, which had its basis in his conviction by general court-martial 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. However, we recognize the adverse impact of the discharge the applicant received; and while it may have been appropriate at the time, we believe it would be an injustice for him to continue to suffer its effects. Therefore, we believe it is in the interest of justice to upgrade his discharge on the basis of clemency. Accordingly, we recommend that his records be corrected to the extent indicated below. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 1 February 1990, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04214 in Executive Session on 5 April 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: All members voted to correct the record, as recommended. The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC- 2011-04214 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Oct 11, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. FBI Investigative Report. Exhibit D. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 28 Dec 11. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Jan 12. Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 30 Jan 12. Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 1 Mar 12.