RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-04082
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge be upgraded.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Writing a bad check while on  active  duty  does  not  warrant  a  bad
conduct discharge.  He cannot  vote  or  own  a  firearm  due  to  his
discharge.

The applicant did not submit  any  documentation  in  support  of  his
request.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 14 Nov
80 for a period of four (4) years.  He was progressively  promoted  to
the grade of airman (E-2), with an effective date and date of rank  of
1 Jan 81.  He was reduced to the grade of airman basic (E-1),  with  a
date of rank (DOR) of 17 Apr 81, pursuant to an Article 15.

The applicant received three Article 15s as follows:

-- On 7 Apr 81, applicant was notified of his  commander's  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment on him  under  Article  15,  UCMJ.   The
misconduct applicant had allegedly committed was for failure to go  at
the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, on or about 30 Mar
81, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ;  and,  for  failure  to  obey  a
lawful order by consuming alcoholic beverages within  eight  hours  of
reporting for scheduled security policy duty, in violation of  Article
92, 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 reduction to the grade  of  airman
basic (E-1), with a new date of rank of 17 Apr 81.  Applicant did  not
appeal the punishment.

-- On 21 May 81, applicant was notified of his commander's  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment on him  under  Article  15,  UCMJ.   The
misconduct applicant had  allegedly  committed  was  for  operating  a
vehicle while drunk, on or about 16 May 81, in  violation  of  Article
111, UCMJ.  The applicant did not consult a lawyer, waived  his  right
to demand trial by court-martial, accepted nonjudicial punishment, but
did not desire to present an  oral  or  written  presentation.   After
considering all  matters  presented  to  him  [third  alcohol  related
incident - two DUIs and drinking prior to duty], the  commander  found
that the applicant did commit one or more  of  the  offenses  alleged.
The commander imposed punishment consisting of a forfeiture of $250.00
for two months and 30 days of correctional custody.   The  applicant’s
appeal of the nonjudicial punishment was denied on 29 May 81.

-- On 5 Jun 81, applicant was notified of his  commander's  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment on him  under  Article  15,  UCMJ.   The
misconduct applicant had allegedly committed was for failure to obey a
lawful order not to enter any clubs selling alcoholic beverages, on or
about 29 May 81, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ.  The applicant  did
not consult a lawyer, waived his  right  to  demand  trial  by  court-
martial, accepted  nonjudicial  punishment,  but  did  not  desire  to
present an  oral  or  written  presentation.   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 consisting of forfeiture of $250.00 for one  month  and  30
days  of  correctional  custody.   Applicant  did   not   appeal   the
punishment.

On 3 Dec 81, the applicant, represented by military counsel, was tried
before a general court-martial at Castle AFB.  He was charged with the
theft of  another  airman’s  wallet,  military  ID  card  and  $20.00,
totaling an approximate value of $50.00 or less; and, an AM/FM  stereo
radio/cassette player, two stereo speakers  and  automobile  wax  from
Sears, totaling approximately $284.00, in violation  of  Article  121,
UCMJ.  He was also charged with fraudulently passing a  bad  check  to
Sears in the amount of $284.57, in violation  of  Article  123,  UCMJ;
acting as an accessory after the fact by hiding in his  car  a  camera
stolen by another airman, in  violation  of  Article  78,  UCMJ;  and,
entering into a conspiracy, including the theft of  $100.00  from  the
Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), store merchandise  valued
at more than $400.00 and forgery, in violation of  Article  81,  UCMJ.
He entered a plea of guilty to all  but  the  theft  of  the  airman’s
wallet, money and ID card and to being an accessory  after  the  fact.
The applicant’s motion for a finding of not guilty as to the theft  of
the wallet, money and ID card was granted.  On 8 Dec 81, applicant was
sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement at  hard  labor  for
one year and one day and forfeiture of all pay  and  allowances.   The
sentence was approved by the convening authority on 25  Feb  82.   The
Air Force Court of Military Review set aside the findings of guilty as
to the accessory after the fact charge, but affirmed the  sentence  as
adjudged.  On 27 Oct 82, the U.S. Court of Military Appeals denied the
applicant’s petition for review.

On 14 Jan  83,  the  applicant  was  discharged  with  a  bad  conduct
discharge under the provisions of General Court-Martial Order No.  302
(conviction  by  court-martial  -  other  than  desertion).   He   had
completed a total of 1 year, 1 month and 4 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 8 Dec 81 through 18 Jul 82.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends the application be denied.  JAJM indicates  that
the application is untimely and the applicant provides  no  basis  for
the 20-year delay  in  filing.   JAJM  points  out  that  the  maximum
punishment for the offenses of which the applicant was found guilty is
a  dishonorable  discharge,  confinement  for  12.5  years  and  total
forfeiture of  all  pay  and  allowances.   The  applicant’s  approved
sentence was a bad conduct discharge, confinement for one year and one
day and total forfeiture of pay and allowances.  JAJM states that  the
stipulation of fact, relayed at the applicant’s trial, concerning  the
alleged stolen and forged checks clearly indicate a  somewhat  greater
criminal intent than the passing of  a  bad  check  as  the  applicant
claims.  Clemency should  only  be  granted  when  the  applicant  has
demonstrated that the degree of punishment in relation  to  the  crime
was a clear injustice.   The  applicant  has  made  no  such  showing.
Accordingly,  there  is  no  merit  to  the  applicant’s  claim.   The
AFLSA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  14
Mar 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________

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
1983.  In this respect, we note that the applicant’s discharge had its
basis in his trial and  conviction  by  a  duly  constituted  military
court.  Considering the 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.  In view of the foregoing and absent evidence showing
he  has  made  a  successful  post-service  adjustment,  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 Docket  Number  BC-2002-
04082 in Executive Session on 22 May 03, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
                  Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Dec 02.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, undated.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Mar 03.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair