RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01292 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He would like his discharge upgraded based on his military personnel file and performance. He would like to take advantage of job, school and loans that are not available to him now. The applicant submits no supporting documentation. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force on 17 August 1989. On 15 September 1992, he pled guilty and was found guilty of wrongfully using marijuana and cocaine, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for five months, total forfeitures and reduction to the grade of airman basic. He was discharged 30 June 1994 with a bad conduct discharge. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. Title 10 U.S.C 1552(f), amended the Boards ability to correct records related to courts-martial. Specifically, it permits the correction of a record to reflect actions taken by a reviewing authority and the correction of records related to action on the sentence of courts-martial for the purpose of clemency. Apart from these two limited exceptions, the Board is without authority to reverse, set aside, or otherwise expunge a court-martial conviction that occurred after 5 May 1950. The applicant requests an upgrade to his bad conduct discharge so that he can have veteran’s benefits. He alleges no error or injustice with the processing of his court-martial. His record of trial shows no error during the processing of his court- martial. At the court-martial, the applicant had the opportunity to demand the government prove the offenses against him. Prior to accepting the guilty plea, 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 applicant explained in his own words why he believed he was guilty and made an unsworn statement asking for leniency for himself and his family. The court-martial took all of these factors into consideration when imposing the applicant’s sentence. Rules for Court-Martial 1003(b)(8)(C) states a bad conduct discharge is designed as punishment for bad conduct. It also indicates that a bad conduct discharge is more than merely a service characterization; it is punishment for crimes committed while a member of the Armed Forces. The applicant’s sentence was an appropriate sentence for the offenses committed and well within the legal limits. A bad conduct discharge 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. Congress’ intent in setting up the Veteran’s Benefits Program was to express thanks for veterans’ personal sacrifices, separations from family, facing hostile enemy action and suffering financial hardships. All rights of a veteran under the laws are barred when the veteran was discharged or dismissed by reason of the sentence of a general court-martial. Upgrading the applicant’s discharge is not appropriate. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation and a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment on 25 April 2013 (Exhibit D). 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-2013-01292 in Executive Session on 12 December 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01292 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, 9 Mar 13. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 24 Apr 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 13. 1 2