RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS



IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03455
            INDEX CODE:  106.00, 110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He offered no mitigating circumstances in his defense  at  his  trial.
He believes that he was a productive member of the Air  Force  for  12
years, that he had an exemplary career and asserts that he should  not
have been court martialed and given a  BCD.   The  applicant  concedes
that he was  a  workaholic,  and  became  an  alcoholic,  gambler  and
adulterer.  He declares that he was introduced to  gambling  by  other
recruiters who worked in his group, and gambling caused the alcoholism
and adultery to become worse.  He states that this information did not
come up at his trial because tarnishing other people’s  reputation  is
not his style.

In support of his request, applicant provided  a  personal  statement,
and a copy of his DD 214, Certificate of  Release  or  Discharge  from
Active Duty.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered into the Air Force on 27 February 1985  and  was
progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant.

He was tried at a general court-martial on 29-30 June  1989.   He  was
charged with  three  specifications  of  violating  a  lawful  general
regulation, in violation of Article 92,  UCMJ;  and  gambling  with  a
subordinate and adultery, both in violation  of  Article  1334,  UCMJ.
Specifically, the applicant gambled while  on  duty,  gambled  with  a
recruit (who later enlisted), and  used  his  Air  Force  position  to
influence this subordinate to loan  him  money.   The  applicant  made
sexual advances toward and accepted sexual advances from an Air  Force
recruit more than once, and had sexual intercourse with her  while  he
was married to another woman.  He chose to be tried by military  judge
alone, pled guilty to all charges and specifications,  and  was  found
guilty.  The military judge sentenced him to a  BCD,  confinement  for
two months, reduction to E-1 and a reprimand.  On 24 August 1989,  the
convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged.

His case was then reviewed by the United States  Air  Force  Court  of
Military Review, which is now called the Air Force Court  of  Criminal
Appeals.  On 13 October 1989, the Air Force Court of  military  review
affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence.  The applicant  then
appealed to the United States Court of Military Appeals, which is  now
called the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.   That
petition was denied on      12 January 1990 and he was separated  with
a BCD on 31 March 1990.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 is dated 14 August  1990  and  reflects  a
BCD.  He served 11 years and 4 months on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM  recommends  denial.   The  applicant’s   contentions   are
untimely, without merit and constitute neither  error  nor  injustice.
There is no legal basis for upgrading the applicant’s discharge.   The
appropriateness of the applicant’s  sentence,  within  the  prescribed
limits is a matter within the discretion of the court martial and  may
be mitigated by the convening authority or within the  course  of  the
appellate review process.  The applicant was represented by counsel in
presenting extenuating and mitigating matters to the  court,  and  the
convening authority.  The matters were considered  in  review  of  the
sentence.  The applicant was afforded all rights  granted  by  statute
and regulation.

At the time of the court-martial, the applicant was 32-years  old  and
had over twelve years of service.  He had been a recruiter since April
1985.  He was aware that Air Force recruiters  were  not  supposed  to
gamble or have sexual relations with recruits.  The  applicant  became
very friendly with a young female recruit, leading  to  at  least  two
sexual encounters.  He also introduced  a  young  male  recruit  to  a
gambling operation involving sports and borrowed $1500 from him.   The
airman had to borrow money from his family to pay to the applicant the
airman’s $15,000 gambling debt.  For his offenses, the  applicant  was
tried and convicted by a general court martial.

The maximum punishment authorized  for  the  offenses  for  which  the
applicant was convicted was a dishonorable discharge, confinement  for
six years and three months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances,  and
reduction to E-1.  The sentence was well within the legal  limits  and
was an appropriate punishment for the offenses committed.

The AFLSA/JAJM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
11 April 03, for review and comment within 30 days.  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 an error or injustice to warrant changing his BCD  to
honorable.  After careful consideration of the available evidence,  we
found no indication that the actions taken  to  effect  his  discharge
were  improper  or  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the   governing
regulations in effect at the time, or that the actions  taken  against
the applicant were based on factors other  than  his  own  misconduct.
Therefore, we agree with the opinion and  recommendation  of  the  Air
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt  their  rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the
victim of an  error  or  injustice.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The documentation provided with this case was sufficient  to  give
the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a  personal
appearance, with or without legal counsel, would not  have  materially
added to that understanding.  Therefore, the request for a hearing  is
not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket  Number  BC-2002-
03455 in Executive Session on 20 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
                 Mr. Kenneth Dumm, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 03.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 26 Mar 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Apr 03.





      JOHN L. ROBUCK
      Panel Chair