RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-00805
            INDEX CODE 105.00  110.00 100.06
            COUNSEL:  Fred L. Bauer

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The 1985 special court-martial (SCM) bad conduct  discharge  (BCD)  be
upgraded  to  an  honorable  or  general  discharge  with  a   neutral
reenlistment eligibility (RE) code.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The military judge of the SCM recommended on the record on 23  Mar  84
that the BCD and the two-grade reduction be  suspended.  Despite  this
and  numerous  other  recommendations  for  clemency,  the   convening
authority approved the sentence as imposed. Counsel  asserts  the  SCM
was too harsh. The applicant has paid an  unfair  and  extraordinarily
high price for submitting false vouchers for a  total  value  of  less
than $900  over  20  years  ago.   The  applicant  lost  17  years  of
retirement equity and has endured  financial  loss,  domestic  strain,
employment frustrations and the shame of the conviction and  the  BCD.
His Vietnam tour carried not only  the  usual  dangers  but  also  the
traumatic and demoralizing job of photographing  the  victims  of  air
crashes over there. This led to  his  seeking  psychiatric  help  and,
although he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder  (PTSD),
he was returned to work. Young men that ran off  to  Canada  to  avoid
this unpopular war have been forgiven but the applicant, who  did  his
“patriotic chore,” is condemned for life unless the Board  intervenes.
Counsel explains why the Board should grant relief even though in 1996
the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AF/DRB) did not. The applicant’s
misconduct over 20 years ago was obviously an aberration. He has  been
an extremely hard-working model citizen, normally working two jobs  to
support  his  family.  Counsel  pleads  that  after  all  this   time,
compassion should be shown to this very decent man.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 6 Dec  67  and  was
ultimately  promoted  to  the  grade  of  technical  sergeant   (TSgt)
effective 30 Nov 80. During the period in question, he was  a  medical
photographer assigned to the Armed Forces Institute  of  Pathology  at
Walter Reed Regional  Medical  Center  (WRRMC).  His  duties  included
making a photographic record  of  fatalities  at  accident  sites  and
subsequent autopsies. He also served as an investigative  photographer
for the National Transportation Safety Board in the event of  a  major
civil aircraft accident. The applicant’s performance  reports  are  at
Exhibit B. [Note: The applicant’s records do  not  have  the  original
performance reports, only photocopies of the front pages.]  Among  the
applicant’s decorations are the Air Force Commendation Medal with  One
Oak Leaf Cluster, National  Defense  Service  Medal,  Vietnam  Service
Medal, Air Force Good Conduct Medal  with  Three  Oak  Leaf  Clusters,
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm, and Republic of Vietnam
Campaign Medal.

A 25 Aug 83 narrative summary by the Malcolm Grow USAF Medical  Center
at Andrews AFB, MD, reveals that the applicant was  hospitalized  from
19 Jul to 12 Aug 83 at the Psychiatric Service of WRRMC for  PTSD.  On
25 Aug 83, he was referred to Malcolm Grow for a profile evaluation on
an outpatient basis and was hospitalized for  diagnostic  reevaluation
and final disposition. The  applicant  had  been  experiencing  stress
associated with prolonged work with dead bodies and the termination of
his first marriage, remarriage and  separation.  His  job  and  family
difficulties led to  progressive  exacerbation  of  anxiety,  sadness,
irritability and frustration when  he  was  taken  to  court  in  1982
because  of  “bad  checks.”  He  developed  memory  lapses,  recurrent
nightmares about Vietnam, negative  attitude,  and  suicidal/homicidal
ideation.  The  applicant  apparently  had   also   been   under   OSI
investigation since Feb 83, which added to his problems. The applicant
was  integrated  into  the  community  program  and   recovered   with
individual, recreational, occupational and group therapies. He did not
receive  psychotropic  medications  and  there  was  no  evidence   of
psychotic  or  neurotic   deterioration,   intellectual   limitations,
alcohol/drug  abuse,  or  major  depressive  illness.  Diagnosis   was
adjustment disorder with  mixed  emotional  features,  acute,  severe,
recovered. He  was  found  worldwide  qualified  with  no  psychiatric
disorder warranting medical action.

On 22 Dec 83, the applicant requested discharge in lieu  of  trial  by
court-martial  and  the  institute  director   recommended   approval.
However, the request was disapproved and the applicant stood trial  by
SCM on 5 Jan 84 at Andrews AFB for five  specifications  of  making  a
false claim against the government.  He  pled  guilty  and  was  found
guilty of the following:

      1.  Did, at Bolling AFB, DC, on or about 14 May  81,  present  a
travel voucher in the amount of $50.12, which was  false  in  that  he
knew no temporary duty (TDY) travel was performed.

      2.  Did, at Bolling AFB, DC, on or about 30 Jun  82,  present  a
travel voucher in the amount of $72.80, which was  false  in  that  he
knew vicinity taxicabs were not used and were not a necessary  expense
of official travel.

      3.  Did, at Bolling AFB, DC, on or about 4  Aug  82,  present  a
travel voucher in the amount of $462.80, which was false  in  that  he
knew taxicabs were not used  and  were  not  a  necessary  expense  of
official travel.

      4.  Did, at Bolling AFB, DC, on or about 13 Sep  82,  present  a
travel voucher in the amount of $198.00, which was false  in  that  he
knew taxicabs were not used  and  were  not  a  necessary  expense  of
official travel.

      5.  Did, at Bolling AFB, DC, on or about 12 Nov  82,  present  a
travel voucher in the amount of $114.55, which was false  in  that  he
knew vicinity taxicabs were not used and were not a necessary  expense
of official travel.

The sentence was a BCD, confinement at hard labor  for  three  months,
forfeiture of $100.00 per month for  three  months  and  reduction  in
grade from TSgt to airman first class. After announcing sentence,  the
military judge stated his recommendation that the BCD  and  that  two-
grades of the reduction be suspended for a six-month period.

A clemency interview was conducted on 13 Jan 84  at  the  Andrews  AFB
Legal Office. The Assistant Staff Judge Advocate noted  the  applicant
seemed confused and troubled by his punishment, feeling  it  was  more
severe than the offense. The applicant’s  financial  situation  deeply
distressed him and he wanted to finish his career with the Air  Force.
Several post-trial clemency evaluations were submitted and, while some
recommendations  were  mixed,  the  majority  recommended  the   trial
recommendations of clemency be accepted.

The staff judge advocate’s review of the SCM on 20 Mar  84  found  the
sentence within legal limits and the punitive separation appropriate.

On 23 Mar 84, the SCM military judge recommended  that  suspension  of
the BCD and two-grade reduction be approved. The  judge  indicated  he
was particularly impressed by the obvious stress  in  the  applicant’s
work environment, adding the military physicians  who  testified  made
the fact of this stress clear. The physicians further  testified  that
there was no formalized program designed  to  assist  these  medically
untrained photographers in coping with  the  stress  of  dealing  with
burned, dismembered and decaying bodies and body parts. An  additional
factor in the judge’s recommendation was the immediate  response,  no-
questions-asked nature of the applicant’s  job.  The  judge  felt  the
sentence was appropriate for the offenses, but the obvious  mitigating
and extenuating evidence presented made  it  clear  to  him  that  the
recommended suspension was appropriate.

The 2 Apr 84 addendum to the staff judge advocate’s  review  disagreed
with the SCM military judge and adhered to his original recommendation
that the sentence as adjudged be approved. On 3 Apr 84,  the  sentence
was affirmed but the forfeitures of $100.00 per month for three months
would apply only to pay becoming due on  or  after  the  date  of  the
convening authority action.

On 3 Apr 85, after 17 years, 3 months, 27 days of active service,  the
applicant was discharged in the grade of airman first class with a BCD
for conviction by court-martial.  He was issued an  RE  code  of  “2B”
(involuntarily separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable-
conditions (UOTHC) discharge).

On 5 Dec 96, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge  Review
Board (DRB). However, after a personal hearing,  the  DRB  denied  the
applicant’s requests for  an  honorable  discharge  and  a  change  of
narrative reason and RE code. Two of the DRB members voted to  upgrade
the  applicant’s  BCD  to   an   under-other-than-honorable-conditions
(UOTHC) discharge.  The  majority  found  insufficient  mitigation  to
substantiate granting the applicant clemency.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  believes  the  discharge  was  consistent   with   the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation.
Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge
authority.  The DRB stated that  the  BCD  was  a  punitive  discharge
resulting from an SCM, and the  only  basis  for  changing  a  BCD  is
clemency, for which there was insufficient basis  in  this  case.  The
applicant has not identified any errors or injustices or submitted any
new  evidence  or  other  facts  warranting  an  upgrade.  Denial   is
recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE advised that the  RE  code  the  applicant  received  is
correct. [Note: The  definition  for  2B  is  actually  “Involuntarily
Separated with a General  or  UOTHC  Discharge”  -  See  Statement  of
Facts.]

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel indicates  he  will  not  reiterate  clemency  issues  already
addressed in the application.  As  for  timeliness,  counsel  and  the
applicant rely on the mercy of the Board. The 3-2 vote to deny by  the
DRB  in  1996  was  demoralizing.  That,   combined   with   financial
limitations, were the main reasons the applicant delayed appealing  to
the Board. The applicant stole because  he  and  his  family  were  in
desperate financial straits. The applicant has since spent the past 21
years leading an honest, very hard-working life.  Counsel  includes  a
handwritten statement from the applicant  to  illustrate  how  decent,
hardworking, and kind his client is. The  supporting  statements  show
the applicant has walked the straight-and-narrow for over two  decades
under  very  difficult  circumstances.  Counsel  asks  the  Board   to
especially note the judge, who was the chief  judge  of  the  circuit,
recommended suspension of the BCD and  the  two-grade  reduction,  but
neither form of clemency was extended. There is no benefit  to  anyone
to continue this punishment; the applicant has  been  punished  enough
and paid his debt to society.  His  client  is  only  asking  for  his
discharge to be upgraded and  recategorized;  he  is  not  asking  for
service credit, retirement or back pay. Counsel prays that clemency be
extended to his client.

In the attached statement, the applicant indicates he would appreciate
an upgrade to a general discharge if honorable was  not  possible.  He
has worked hard for what he has, sometimes working  at  two  or  three
jobs at a time just to maintain himself. He’s truly sorry for what  he
did and apologizes to those he hurt.

A complete copy of counsel’s response, with attachment, is at  Exhibit
G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice to  warrant  partial  relief.  The
Board took special note that the SCM military  judge  recommended  the
BCD and the two-grade reduction be suspended for six months, and  that
the applicant was hospitalized for PTSD, primarily as a result of  his
occupation. We agree with the judge that the  stress  created  by  the
applicant’s often  horrific  duties  as  a  medical  photographer  was
clearly mitigating.  We were also impressed by  the  applicant’s  more
than 17 years of generally excellent duty  performance  and  the  fact
that he  accepted  responsibility  for  his  infractions  by  pleading
guilty. Further, the applicant appears to have  rehabilitated  himself
into a dependable, hard-working  citizen.  We  agree  that  relief  is
warranted, but the  majority  of  the  Board  believes  the  discharge
characterization should be upgraded to general, rather than honorable.
In this regard, the Board majority is not  persuaded  that  the  above
factors  completely  overcome  the  seriousness  of  the   applicant’s
misconduct. He fraudulently submitted false travel  vouchers  on  five
occasions over a  six-month  period,  for  a  total  of  nearly  $900.
Nevertheless, we applaud the applicant’s determination to  rise  above
his many difficulties, as evidenced  by  the  active  duty  and  post-
service letters of support. While the BCD may have been appropriate at
the time, we believe he should not continue to suffer its stigma.  The
Board majority therefore concludes that an equitable form of  clemency
would be to upgrade the applicant’s 1985 BCD to a  general  discharge,
and this we so recommend.

4.    The applicant’s request for  a  “neutral”  RE  code  was  noted.
However, as the “2B” RE code the applicant currently has is  used  for
individuals involuntarily separated with a general or UOTHC discharge,
and we are recommending his BCD be upgraded to general,  his  existing
RE code is accurate and no change is necessary.  He  has  provided  no
compelling basis for us to recommend further amendment.

5.    The applicant’s case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that, on 3 April  1985,  he
was discharged with service characterized as general (under  honorable
conditions).

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 3 September 2003 under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
                 Mr. J. Dean Yount, Member
                 Ms. Beth M. McCormick, Member

By a majority vote, the  Board  recommended  the  applicant’s  BCD  be
upgraded to general. Mr. Petkoff voted to upgrade the discharge
to honorable, but does not wish  to  submit  a  Minority  Report.  The
following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2003-00805 was considered:

         Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Feb 03, w/atchs.
         Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
         Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Apr 03.
         Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 21 May 03.
         Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.
         Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dtd 25 Jun 03.
         Exhibit G.  Letter, Counsel, dated 16 Jul 03, w/atch.




                                   GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2003-00805



MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of  the  Department  of  the  Air
Force relating to    , be corrected to show that, on 3 April 1985,  he
was discharged with service characterized as general (under  honorable
conditions).





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency