RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02616
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to honorable and his time served
in confinement be counted as good time, which would  give  him  enough
good time to qualify for retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Air Force Command in England used the outcome of his court-martial
as an example.  He was accused of driving while intoxicated (DWI);  he
was never tested to determine his blood alcohol  level.   He  was  not
allowed to have English witnesses to testify for him.  His 19 1/2 year
career  was  not  taken  into  consideration.   There  was   never   a
determination of who  was  at  fault  for  the  accident.   His  court
appointed military defense counsel made derogatory remarks  about  his
character.

He has been carrying the remorse and shame for this for over 15 years.
  The  punishment  awarded  by  the  court  martial  was  extreme  and
unwarrantable; compared to the results  of  a  current  administrative
hearing of senior marine officers whose misconduct caused the loss  of
lives and destruction of government property.

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 May 1967  for  a
period of four years as an airman basic.

During the period in question, the  applicant  was  assigned  to  USAF
Hospital at Beale AFB, CA.  While on TDY in RAF  Mildenhall,  UK,  the
applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident, resulting  in  the
death of a military member and severely injuring several civilians.

The applicant was tried by general court martial from 25  August  1986
through 4 September 1986.  He was charged in violation of Articles 119
and  111  of  the  UCMJ.   Charge  one  was  having  through  culpable
negligence, killed a passenger in a  car  then  being  driven  by  the
applicant, and with operating a passenger car while drunk, causing his
vehicle to strike another vehicle and injuring the passengers  of  the
other vehicle.  The applicant was found guilty of the lesser charge of
negligent homicide (Article 134, UCMJ) and  driving  while  drunk  and
causing  a  motor  vehicle  accident  and  injuring  others.   He  was
sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for  two  years  and
six months, and reduction  to  E-1.   In  accordance  to  a  pre-trial
agreement the  convening  authority  approved  only  so  much  of  the
sentence as provided  for  a  bad  conduct  discharge,  24  months  of
confinement and reduction to E-1.

On 26 February 1987, the Air Force Court of Military  Review  affirmed
the findings and sentence.  On 4 September 1987,  the  U.S.  Court  of
Military Appeals denied the applicant's petition  for  review  of  the
lower court's decision.   A  final  court  martial  order  was  issued
directing on  2  October  1987  that  the  bad  conduct  discharge  be
executed.  The discharge was executed on 5 November 1987.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which  is  attached
at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM states the applicant  has  not  provided  any  evidence  to
substantiate that his court martial  sentence  was  more  severe  than
others  court-martialed  or  convicted  for  similar  misconduct.    A
stipulation of fact was  submitted  at  the  applicant's  trial.   The
stipulation  of  fact  is  commonly  used  when  a  guilty   plea   is
anticipated.  Also, once a stipulation of fact has been  entered,  the
facts of the case are uncontradicted.  The  military  judge  explained
the stipulation of fact to the applicant to ensure that the  applicant
had not signed or agreed to the document under coercion or duress; and
the applicant acknowledged that he  understood  the  contents  of  the
stipulation fact.

According to the stipulation of fact the applicant was administered  a
blood alcohol test approximately three and one-half  hours  after  the
accident and it revealed the applicant's blood alcohol level was  .145
milligrams of alcohol per deciliter of blood.

The applicant alleges that his attorney was court  appointed,  but  in
fact the applicant requested that XXXXX. represent him  and  this  was
approved by xxxx.  The applicant's other attorney xxxx. was  appointed
by xxxx.  At trial, the judge explained to the  applicant  his  rights
regarding counsel.  The applicant informed the judge that he wished to
be represented at trial by XXXX and XXXXXX.  There is nothing  in  the
applicant's record to support his allegation that his defense  counsel
made disparaging remarks about  his  character.   Nor,  is  there  any
evidence in the applicant's record to indicate that he was denied  the
opportunity to present testimony of English national witnesses on  his
behalf.

The applicant's military records were introduced during the sentencing
phase of the trial and the  applicant  exercised  his  right  to  have
witnesses testify  on  his  behalf  and  submitted  other  matters  in
mitigation,  to  include  his  unsworn  statement.   In  his   unsworn
statement the applicant told the court-marital members:  "I  want  you
to know that I am ready to accept my  punishment,  I  know  more  than
anyone else in this courtroom the tragedy I've caused so many people."

Based  on  the  information  provided,  JAJM  recommends  denying  the
applicant's request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluation and the FBI report  were  forwarded
to the applicant on 15 March 2002 and 28 June 2002,  respectively  for
review and response.  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.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of injustice warranting an upgrade  of  the  applicant's
discharge solely on  the  basis  of  clemency.   In  this  regard,  no
evidence has been presented which would lead the Board to believe  the
applicant's discharge was improper or contrary to the directive  under
which it was effected.  The recommendation of the Air  Force  is  duly
noted, however, we are of  the  opinion  that  upgrading  the  service
member’s discharge to general (under honorable conditions),  based  on
clemency, would be appropriate.  Applicant’s request for an  honorable
discharge was considered.  However, we  are  not  persuaded  that  any
further relief on the basis of clemency is warranted.   Therefore,  we
recommend  the  servicemember’s  records  be  correct  to  the  extent
indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 5 November 1987, he
was discharged  with  the  service  characterized  as  general  (under
honorable conditions).

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 01-
02616 in Executive Session on 22 May 2002 and 16 July 2002, under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
                       Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
                       Ms. Martha Maust, Member

All members voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Oct 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFLSA/JAJM, undated.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Mar 02.




                             ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                             Panel Chair