RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01834
                             INDEX CODE:  110.00

                             COUNSEL: None

                             HEARING DESIRED: No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He spent many years with an honorable service record and he takes full
responsibility for his actions.

His discharge has been damaging to his future and  he  would  like  to
move forward.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23  April  1986  for  a
period of four (4) years as an airman.

The applicant received an Article 15 dated 7 June 1988 for  committing
indecent acts on or about  31  May  1988.   For  this  misconduct  his
punishment consisted of reduction in grade to  airman,  forfeiture  of
$100.00 and a reprimand.

The applicant received  an  Article  15  dated  4  November  1993  for
dereliction of duty and larceny on or about 11 and 21 June 1993.   For
this misconduct the applicant’s punishment consisted of forfeiture  of
$100.00 of pay a month for one month.

On 15 December 1993, the applicant was charged with violating  Article
112a for wrongful use of cocaine on 12 October 1993.

Applicant was found guilty, in accordance with his pleas, by a general
court-martial for wrongful use of cocaine.  On  23 February  1994,  he
was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for six  months,
and reduction to the grade of airman
basic.  On 25 January 1995, the Air Force Court  of  Criminal  Appeals
(AFCCA) affirmed the findings and  sentence.   On  24  May  1995,  the
applicant’s petition for review by the United States Court of  Appeals
for the Armed Forces was denied.  On 22 July 1995,  the  final  court-
martial order was issued directing that the bad conduct  discharge  be
executed.

Applicant’s EPR profile as a senior airman is listed below.

                 PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

                 21 May 91              4
                 17 Apr 92              5
                 17 Apr 93              5

Applicant was discharged from the Regular Air Force on 22  July  1995,
in the grade of airman basic, under the provisions of  General  Court-
Martial Order No. 8, and was furnished a bad  conduct  discharge.   He
had completed 9 years, 3 months total active service with 2 months and
28 days lost time.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM states an application must  be  filed  within  three  years
after the error or injustice was discovered, or, with  due  diligence,
should have been discovered.  An application  may  be  denied  on  the
basis of being untimely, however, an untimely filing may be excused in
the interest of justice.  The applicant’s request  comes  eight  years
after his discharge.  He has not identified an error or  injustice  in
the processing of his discharge.

Under 10 USC Section 1552(f), which amended the basic correction board
legislation, the AFBCMR’s ability to correct records related to courts-
martial is limited.   Specifically,  Section  1552(f)(1)  permits  the
correction  of  a  record  to  reflect  actions  taken  by   reviewing
authorities  under  the  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ).
Additionally, Section 1552(f)(2) permits  the  correction  of  records
related to action on the sentence of courts-martial for the purpose of
clemency.  Apart from these two  limited  exceptions,  the  effect  of
Section 1552(f) is that AFBCMR is without authority  to  reverse,  set
aside, or otherwise expunge a court-martial conviction  that  occurred
on or after 5 May 1950 (the effective date of the UMCJ).

They further state that there is no  legal  basis  for  upgrading  the
applicant’s discharge.  His sentence was within the prescribed  limits
and was a matter within the discretion of the court-martial and  could
have been mitigated by the convening authority
or during the course of  the  appellate  review.   The  applicant  was
afforded all rights guaranteed by  statute  and  regulation.   He  has
provided no compelling basis based on the circumstances  of  his  case
that would warrant a change in his discharge.

AFLSA/JAJM further states that while clemency is an option,  there  is
no reason for the Board to exercise clemency in the applicant’s  case.
The applicant did not serve honorably  during  this  enlistment.   The
military judge, convening authority and the appellate court believed a
BCD appropriately characterized the applicant’s military  service  and
crimes.  The  applicant  has  not  presented  sufficient  evidence  to
warrant upgrading his  discharge  and  therefore  they  recommend  the
requested relief be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
12 September 2003, 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 of timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  After thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence or record, we find no evidence to show that  the  applicant’s
discharge as a result of his conviction by court-martial was erroneous
or unjust.  The applicant’s contentions are duly  noted,  however,  he
has submitted no evidence to support these contentions.  Therefore, we
agree with the opinions and recommendations 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  either  an
error or an injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-01834  in  Executive  Session  on  18  December  2003  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                              Ms.  Carolyn  J.  Watkins-Taylor,  Panel
Chair
                             Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
                             Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Jul 03.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 27 Aug 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Sep 03.




                                        CAROLYN J. WATKINS-TAYLOR
                                        Panel Chair