RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-00332

XXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served proudly in the Air Force for ten years and three months and received multiple awards.  At the time of this discharge his personal life was in a bad place and his marriage was in shambles.  He begin to drink alcohol to cope with anger, stress, and anxiety among other things.  He regrets the decision he made which led to his discharge.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force staff sergeant (E-5).  

The applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, indicates he entered active duty in the Regular Air Force on 11 Jul 73.

On 21 Nov 79, the applicant received punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for wrongfully communicating to a fellow airmen a threat to wit: ‘’ I’m going to remember you, and I’m going to xxxx you up, ‘’ or words to that effect, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, and for assault, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ.  He received a reduction to the grade of airman first class and was ordered to forfeit $100.00 per month for two months.

The Department of the Air Force, Headquarters Ninth Air Force, General Court-Martial Order, No. 2, dated 5 Jan 83, states the applicant was found guilty at a Special Court-Martial of the following specifications and charges:

        a. Charge I, Specification 1: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 128.  The applicant, on or about 26 Jan 82, committed an assault upon an individual by repeatedly striking with a vehicle the rear of the vehicle, which the individual was, a passenger.

        b. Charge I, Specification 2:  The applicant, on or about 3 Nov 81, committed an assault upon an individual by striking him with a means likely to produce grievous bodily harm; striking with his vehicle the leg of said individual.

        c. Charge II:  Violation of UCMJ, Article 90.  The applicant disobeyed a lawful command, from his superior commissioned officer, to refrain from making contact with a specified individual.

        d. Charge III, Specification 1: Violation of UCMJ, 91.  The applicant, on or about 26 Jan 82, assaulted his superior noncommissioned officer, by striking him in the stomach with his fist.

         e. Charge III, Specification 2:  The applicant, on or about 26 Jan 82, assaulted his superior noncommissioned officer, by striking with a vehicle the rear of a vehicle, which the superior noncommissioned officer was driving.

On 17 Sep 82, the convening authority approved the adjudged sentence.  

On 5 Jan 83, the Board of Review approved the finding and the sentence was executed on 5 Jan 83.  

According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, the applicant received a BCD on 17 Oct 83.

On 27 Oct 17, the applicant was sent a request for post-service information; however, he has not replied.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denying the application.  We find no evidence to suggest the applicant’s court-martial was unsupported in law or fact. In accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1552(f), the BCMR has no authority to overturn the court-martial conviction, but may, on the basis of clemency, adjust the sentence. Here, the punishment approved by the convening authority was within the range of permissible punishments. There is no evidence that the applicant was not afforded all of his procedural due process rights at his trials or during appellate review. It is the applicant’s burden to present sufficient evidence to the BCMR to support their petition; here, the applicant has submitted nothing to substantiate his claims. We see no basis in law to suggest that applicant’s courts-martial processes were an injustice warranting correction by this Board.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 6 Jun 18 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an injustice.  It appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the commander’s discretion.  The discharge was not unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  The Board considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, given the evidence presented, the Board finds no basis to do so.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2017-00332 in Executive Session on 2 Oct 18:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following Documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2017-00332:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 8 Feb 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C: Acknowledgement and Clemency Letter, 27 Sep 17.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 12 Feb 18.
Exhibit E:	Letter, AFBCMR to applicant, dated 6 Jun 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.