RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01051 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was forced to be absent without leave (AWOL). He needs his discharge upgraded for veterans’ benefits. He is ashamed of his BCD. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 May 68, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the Regular Air Force. On 19 Jun 69, the applicant was tried and convicted by a special court-martial for one specification of being AWOL. He was sentenced to a BCD, six months confinement, and forfeiture of $25.00 of pay per month for six months. On 22 Jul 69, the convening authority approved the finding and the sentence as adjudged. On 18 Aug 69, United States Air Force Court of Military Review affirmed the applicant’s court-martial, conviction and sentence. On 17 Oct 69, the convening authority ordered the execution of the BCD. The applicant was furnished a BCD on 22 Oct 69, and credited with one year, five months, and three days of active service. On 17 Jan 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. There was no evidence provided or located in records showing an error in the processing of the special court-martial; nor does the applicant contend there was an error in the processing of his court-martial or his conviction. The applicant pled guilty being AWOL. Prior to accepting the applicant’s guilty plea, the judge ensured he understood the meaning and effect of his plea and the maximum punishment that could be imposed if his plea was accepted by the court. In cases which include guilty pleas, the military judge ensures the accused understands the meaning and effect of his plea and the maximum punishment that could be imposed if his guilty plea is accepted by the court. The military judge explains the elements and definitions of the offenses to which the accused plead guilty, and has the accused explain in his own words why he believes he is guilty. Upon the court's acceptance of the guilty plea, it receives evidence in aggravation, as well as in extenuation and mitigation, prior to crafting an appropriate sentence for the crimes committed. The Rules for Courts-Martial state that a BCD "is designed as punishment for bad-conduct." It also indicates that a BCD is more than merely a service characterization; it is a punishment for the crimes the individual committed while a member of the armed forces. The applicant's sentence was within the legal limits and was an appropriate punishment for the offenses committed. A BCD was and continues to be part of a proper sentence and properly characterizes his service. While clemency may be granted under 10 U.S.C § 1552(f)(2), clemency is not warranted in this case. The applicant’s sentence to a BCD, reduction in rank, and confinement for four months was well within the legal limits and was an appropriate punishment for the offense committed. Congress’ intent in setting up the Veteran’s Benefits Program was to express thanks for veterans’ personal sacrifices, separations from family, facing hostile enemy actions, and suffering financial hardship. All rights of a veteran under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs are barred where the veteran was discharged or dismissed by reason of the sentence of a general court-martial. The applicant’s service time was punctuated by cocaine use, which should not be rewarded by the granting of veterans’ benefits. Upgrading the applicant’s BCD is not appropriate. A complete copy of the AFLOA/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 24 Jul 13 for review and comment 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 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, 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. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-01051 in Executive Session on 27 Feb 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Feb 13. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 19 Jun 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jul 13. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Jan 14, w/atch. Panel Chair