RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-05009 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Bad conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was young and used poor judgment and made a bad choice when she discovered her teenage daughter had written several checks to the Base Exchange (BX) without her consent. When she found out her daughter was writing bad checks she did her best to cover them with the funds she had. She let her commander know what had occurred and the next thing she knew she was being court-martialed for writing bad checks. Prior to this incident her performance rating and conduct was good. Her past performance should be used to upgrade her discharge. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 2 Jun 86. According to the Special Court-Martial Order Number 3, dated 14 Nov 89, the applicant was charged with the following specifications of violating Article 134 the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): a. Specification 1: On or about 9 Jun 89 and on or about 2 Jul 89, wrote bad checks at The Base Exchange. b. Specification 2: On or about 17 Jun 89 and on or about 30 Jun 89, wrote bad checks at The Base Exchange. On 10 Oct 89, the applicant’s sentence was adjudged. On 27 Jul 90, the applicant’s sentence was affirmed and punishment consisted of a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for forty-five days, and reduction to the rank of Airman Basic (E-1). On 19 May 91, the applicant was furnished a bad conduct discharge, and was credited with 4 years, 11 months, and 9 days of active service. On 14 Dec 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The punishment adjudged by the military judge and approved by the convening authority was within the range of permissible punishments. The applicant was afforded all her appellate rights. In accordance with 10 USC 1552(f), the Board has no authority to overturn the court-marital conviction but may only on the basis of clemency, correct the actions taken by the reviewing authorities, i.e., the sentence. The applicant submitted no evidence in clemency. Additionally, ordinarily, an applicant must file an application within three years after an error or injustice is discovered or, with due diligence, should have been discovered. The applicant’s courts- martial occurred in 1989 with final action in 1990. Since she was on notice of the basis and characterization of discharge 25 years ago, the application is untimely. Therefore, due to the late submission to the Board, lack of evidence from the applicant and the apparent lack of any legal error or injustice with the court-martial process, we recommend the Board not grant relief. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 26 Feb 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 her 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 her accomplishments since her discharge are sufficient to overcome the misconduct for which she was discharged, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application. 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-2014-05009 in Executive Session on 11 Aug 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-05009 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Nov 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. SAF/MRBR Letter to Applicant, dated 14 Dec 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 20 Feb 15. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Feb 15. 1 2