RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03246 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His dishonorable discharge be upgraded to honorable. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was not counseled prior to being discharged from the Air 
Force. His civil rights were denied and deprived. He was a 
victim of personality disorder and racial discrimination. 

 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant was tried by special court-martial on 15 Jan 54. 
The reason for this action was for: 

 

 Violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 
Article 121: For stealing property of another airman; 
specifically, one Foldex 20 camera that was valued at about 
$15.00. He pled guilty and was found guilty. The applicant was 
sentenced to reduction in grade to airman basic, confined at hard 
labor for two months, and forfeited $50.00 per month for two 
months. The sentence was adjudged on 12 Jun 54. 

 

The applicant was tried by summary court-martial on 14 Dec 54. 
The reason for this action was for: 

 

 Violation of UCMJ, Article 92: For failing to obey. The 
applicant was sentenced to hard labor without confinement for 
thirty days and forfeiture of $50.00. 

 

He received a dishonorable discharge after serving 3 years, 
5 months, and 25 days on active duty. 

 

 


The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained 
in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air 
Force, which is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. The application is untimely. 
Additionally, the applicant has alleged no error in his court-
martial. JAJM did not have the record of trial to examine; 
however, they reviewed the documents provided by the applicant. 
Based on the applicant’s submission the only error or injustice 
in how the court-martial was conducted was the prosecution of 
Charge II when the applicant had already been prosecuted for the 
same crime in the civilian court system. This error/injustice 
was fixed; however, when the convening authority set aside the 
finding of guilt on Charge II the sentence was reduced 
accordingly. Further, the applicant alleges deprivation of his 
civil rights and discrimination based on race and a personality 
disorder. Unfortunately none of the evidence provided supports 
any of these claims. The applicant requests his discharge 
characterization be upgraded based on a settlement that took 
place in 1978; however, this settlement only applied to those who 
were administratively discharged for personality disorders and 
clearly states it does not apply to those who were convicted at a 
court-martial. In addition, clemency would not be fair to those 
individuals who honorably served their country while in uniform. 

 

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He provides a copy of the Military Justice Procedure from the War 
Department, dated February 1945. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 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 Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 
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 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-2012-03246 in Executive Session on 7 May 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Vice Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Aug 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 16 Nov 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, undated. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Vice Chair