RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04070 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions) or an honorable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes his discharge was unjust. The punishment he received during his special court-martial outweighs the crime. He further states that other veterans in his situation have received an upgrade of their character of service. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 May 1970. The applicant was tried and convicted by a special court-martial for wrongfully transferring marijuana on two separate dates. He pled guilty and was sentenced to a BCD and a reduction in grade from technical sergeant to senior airman. The sentence was adjudged on 20 July 1982. On 23 March 1983, the applicant was discharged in the grade of sergeant with a BCD under the provisions of Special Court-Martial Order Number 1. He served 13 years, 10 months and 4 days on active duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states the applicant does not allege an error or injustice, rather he believes the discharge should be upgraded due to the amount of time that has passed since his misconduct. The record of trial does not show an error in the processing of the special court-martial. At trial, the applicant pled guilty to the charge and specifications. The applicant who was represented by military counsel had the opportunity to demand the government prove the offenses against him. Prior to accepting his guilty plea, as evidenced by the record of trial, the military judge ensured the applicant understood the meaning and effect of his plea and the maximum punishment that could be imposed if his guilty plea was accepted by the court. The military judge explained the elements and definitions of the offenses to which the applicant pled guilty, and the applicant explained in his own words why he believed he was guilty. The court received evidence in aggravation, as well as in extenuation and mitigation, prior to crafting an appropriate sentence for the crimes committed. The applicant made an unsworn statement on his behalf asking for leniency so he could take care of his family. The court-martial took all of these factors into consideration when imposing the applicant’s sentence. A BCD is more than merely a service characterization; it is a punishment for the crimes the applicant committed while a member of the armed forces. A BCD was and continues to be part of a proper sentence and properly characterizes his service. Clemency in this case would be unfair to those individuals who honorably served their country while in uniform. Upgrading the applicant’s discharge is not appropriate. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 10 December 2012, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 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). We have considered the applicant's overall quality of service, the court-martial conviction which precipitated the discharge, the seriousness of the offense to which convicted, and the absence of any documentation pertaining to post-service activities. 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 the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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-2012-04070 in Executive Session on 16 May 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04070 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 September 2012. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 27 November 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 December 2012.