RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05470 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His bad conduct discharge is the result of trial by court- martial on 4 April 1991 for a one-time urinalysis failure. The BCD has brought discredit and shame upon his family. This type of discharge far exceeds the customary corrective action applied for the nature of the offense. The only other evidence of this one-time act was provided by him under the advisement of counsel. He expected a fair punishment and to be retained in the Air Force. He feels his defense was defective as they urged him to plead guilty. Additionally, his defense counsel failed to notice that he had been awarded an Achievement medal. No referral performance report was generated for the court-martial. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the regular Air Force. On 30 April 1991, he pled guilty to wrongfully using marijuana, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, fine of $300 and reduction to the grade of airman basic. He was discharged on 15 September 1993 with a bad conduct discharge AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. The applicant was tried by special court-martial on 4 April 1991. A military judge found him guilty, in accordance with his plea, of wrongfully using marijuana on a single occasion, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. A panel of officers sentenced the applicant to be discharged with a bad conduct discharge, fined $300 and to be reduced to the grade of airman basic. On 30 April 1991, the convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged. On 1 November 1991, the Air Force Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and the sentence. On 23 June 1993, the Court of Military Appeals denied the applicant’s petition for a grant of review. On 27 August 1993, the convening authority ordered the applicant’s bad conduct discharge be executed. The punishment adjudged by the panel of officer members and approved by the convening authority was within the range of permissible punishments. The applicant was afforded his appellate rights so any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel should have been brought up during the appeal where the Court had the ability to gather affidavits from the defense counsel regarding the applicant’s claims or trial strategy. In accordance with 10 U.S.C 1552(f), the Board has no authority to overturn the court-martial conviction. The Board may, only on the basis of clemency, correct actions taken by the reviewing authorities, i.e. the sentence. However, in this case the only evidence submitted in support of clemency is one statement from a minister. There was no error or injustice with the court-martial process. 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 20 October 2014, for review and comment within 30 days (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. There was insufficient evidence submitted attesting to the applicant’s post-service accomplishments to conclude that clemency at this time 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-2013-05470 in Executive Session on 8 January 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dtd 14 Nov 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Excerpts. Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dtd 3 Oct 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 20 Oct 14.