RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03787
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he graduates from college, he does  not  want  his  discharge  to
hinder his chance for  future  employment  with  a  state  or  federal
agency.  It has been 15 years since his discharge.  He has not been in
any trouble and  has  been  gainfully  employed.   He  is  married,  a
homeowner and a member of the Volunteer Fire Department.

No supporting documents  were  submitted.   The  applicant’s  complete
submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 19 Mar
84 for a period of 4 years.  He  was  progressively  promoted  to  the
grade of airman first class  (E-3).   Pursuant  to  a  General  Court-
Martial Order, he was reduced to the grade of airman basic (E-1).

On 26 Nov 84, applicant was notified  of  his  commander's  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) for stealing  approximately
$180.00 from another airman, in violation of Article 121,  UCMJ.   The
applicant consulted a lawyer, waived his  right  to  demand  trial  by
court-martial and accepted nonjudicial punishment.  After  considering
all matters presented to him, the commander found that  the  applicant
did commit one or more of the offenses alleged.  The commander imposed
punishment of forfeiture  of  $50.00  per  month  for  one  month  and
restriction to base  for  14  days.   Applicant  did  not  appeal  the
punishment.

On 1 May 86, applicant was tried before  a  general  court-martial  at
Homestead AFB.  He was charged with using and distributing cocaine and
marijuana, in violation of Article  134,  UCMJ,  and  conspiring  with
another airman to possess cocaine, in violation of Article  81,  UCMJ.
The applicant pled guilty to all charges.  He  was  found  guilty  and
sentenced to a bad  conduct  discharge,  confinement  for  32  months,
reduction in grade to airman basic (E-1) and forfeiture of all pay and
allowances.  Subsequent to reducing the confinement to 30 months,  the
convening authority approved the sentence on 5 Jun 86.

The applicant received a bad conduct discharge on 7 Apr 87  under  the
provisions of General Court-Martial Order (GCMO) No. 135, dated 3  Mar
87, (conviction by court-martial  (other  than  desertion)).   He  had
completed a total of 2 years, 1 month and 12 days and was  serving  in
the grade of airman  basic  (E-1)  at  the  time  of  discharge.   The
applicant’s lost time was during the period 1 May 86 through 7 Apr 87.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends the application be denied.  JAJM indicated  that
the applicant did not appeal his court-martial conviction and sentence
to the U.S. Court of Military Appeals.  JAJM states that 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 had the assistance of counsel
in  presenting  extenuating  and  mitigating  matters  in  their  most
favorable light to the  court  and  the  convening  authority.   These
matters were considered in review of the sentence.  The applicant  was
thus afforded all rights granted by statute and regulation.   In  this
case, the convening authority  reduced  the  applicant’s  sentence  to
confinement.   The  applicant  provides  no  compelling  rationale  to
mitigate the approved bad conduct discharge given the circumstances of
the case.  He used and distributed both marijuana  and  cocaine.   For
those offenses, the applicant was tried by the appropriate forum --  a
general court-martial.  The  maximum  punishment  authorized  for  the
offenses for which the applicant  was  convicted  was  a  dishonorable
discharge, confinement  for  42  years,  forfeiture  of  all  pay  and
allowances and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.  While clemency
is an option, JAJM states that there is no reason  for  the  Board  to
exercise clemency in this case.  The applicant has identified no error
or injustice related to the sentence.  His alleged later good  conduct
does  not  justify  criminal  behavior  during  his  enlistment.   The
applicant presents insufficient evidence to warrant upgrading the  bad
conduct discharge and does not  demonstrate  an  equitable  basis  for
relief.  In addition, his request, made 15 years after his  conviction
and  discharge,  is  untimely.   The  AFLSA/JAJM  evaluation   is   at
Exhibit C.


HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.   Based  upon  the
documentation in the file, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent
with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation.  DPPRS states that the applicant did not  submit  any  new
evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge processing.   He  provided  no  other  facts  warranting  an
upgrade of the discharge.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at  Exhibit
D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant  on  7
Mar 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________

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   thoroughly   reviewed
applicant’s record and the circumstances surrounding the discharge  in
1987.  In this respect, we note that the applicant’s discharge had its
basis in his trial and  conviction  by  a  duly  constituted  military
court.  We believe it is  significant  that  a  substantially  harsher
punishment was authorized under the UCMJ for the offenses of which the
applicant stood convicted.  Considering the extremely  serious  nature
of his infractions against  the  good  order  and  discipline  of  the
service, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the  Military
Justice Division and adopt the rationale expressed as  the  basis  for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden  that
he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  While the  applicant
indicates  he  has  made  a  successful  post-service  adjustment,  he
provides no documents to  substantiate  that  he  has  maintained  the
standards of good citizenship in the community  since  his  discharge.
Therefore, we are not inclined to exercise clemency in the form of  an
upgrade to his  discharge.   In  view  of  the  foregoing  and  absent
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 10 Apr 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
                  Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
                  Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-03787.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Nov 02.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFLSA/JAJM, dated 10 Feb 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Feb 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 03.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair