RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05280 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes the charges against him did not warrant a BCD. His request is based on him wanting to get a good job. He was only 19 years old when he made these mistakes and is now 34 years old, and feels that he has paid his dues. He performed community service and paid all restitution in 1999. He has only qualified to work menial jobs because of his type of discharge. The applicant does not provide any supporting documentation. His complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served in the Regular Air Force and was court- martialed for the following: Violation of Article 123 (Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Two specifications of using another person’s credit card with the intent to defraud. Violation Article 121 (UCMJ): Two specifications of larceny in the amount of $1,772.34; and three specifications of attempted larceny from three different locations in the amount of $4,284.66. The applicant pled guilty to the charges and was sentenced to receive a BCD on 17 Jul 01 and was confined for twelve months. He was discharged after serving 2 years, 11 months, and 24 days on active duty. The remaining 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 applicant contends the punishment did not fit the crime; therefore, his discharge should be upgraded. At his court-martial, the applicant pled guilty to all charges and specifications. He had the opportunity to demand the government prove the offenses against him. The military judge ensured the applicant understood the meaning and effect of his plea prior to accepting his guilty plea, and the maximum punishment that could be imposed if his guilty plea was accepted by the court. The court received evidence in aggravation, as well as in extenuation and mitigation, prior to crafting an appropriate sentence for the crimes committed. Additionally, clemency in this case would not be fair to those who honorably served their country while in uniform. The complete 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 11 Jan 13 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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 offenses to which convicted, and the absence of any documentation pertaining to his 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 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-2012-05280 in Executive Session on 13 Aug 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Nov 12. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 4 Jan 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jan 13.