RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:               DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02085
                                    INDEX CODE: 110.00

                                   COUNSEL: NONE

                                    HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT:

His prison term he received as a result  of  court-martial  action  be
eliminated.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was court-martialed for an offense that occurred in Huntsville,  OH
in December 1990 although he was stationed in Misawa AB, Japan at  the
time of the offense.  Mental health problems he was having  interfered
with his thinking.  He was not aware there was a time limit to  submit
an application.

The applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 03 December 1976. On 21
April 1992, he was tried by court-martial at Bergstrom AFB, Texas.  He
was charged  with  indecent  acts  and  liberties  with  a  child,  in
violation of  Article  34,  UCMJ,  and  disobeying  a  noncommissioned
officer, in violation of Article 91, UCMJ.  On 22 April 1992,  he  was
found guilty in a trial by  judge  and  sentenced  to  a  bad  conduct
discharge, 30 months confinement, total forfeitures, and reduction  to
the grade of airman basic.  On 20 May 1992,  the  convening  authority
approved the sentenced as adjudged.  On 1 October 1992, he  petitioned
the United States Air Force Court of Military Review (now  called  the
Air Force court of Criminal Appeals) to dismiss the charged  violation
of Article 91 on the grounds that the order forming its basis was  not
a lawful order.  The court affirmed his  conviction  and  sentence  on
18 April 1994.  The United States Court  of  Military  Appeals  denied
relief under Article 67, UCMJ, on 26 October 1994. The  applicant  was
separated on 4 November 1994, with a bad conduct  discharge.   He  was
credited with 17 years, 7 months and 9 days of active duty service.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM reviewed the case and recommended  denial.  JAJM  indicates
the applicant states that he was not  aware  of  the  time  limit  and
mental health problems interfered with his thinking.  A review of  his
medical records reveals that prior to the  close  of  the  Article  32
investigation, his mental health  was  questioned.   A  mental  health
evaluation was completed and he was diagnosed  with  two  conditions--
pedophilia and alcoholism.  The mental health professional  determined
these conditions had no affect  on  his  capacity  to  understand  the
nature of the proceedings.  He  did  not  exhibit  any  mental  health
issues during his separation physical in December 1993 and  he  stated
he was in good health.

AFLSA/JAJM states the applicant's implication that it  was  impossible
for him to have committed the  offense  because  he  was  not  at  the
location of the alleged offense is without merit.  Though the original
charge sheet indicated the indecent acts  with  a  child  occurred  in
December 1990 in Ohio, the charge sheet was amended prior to the court-
martial indicating the offense occurred in Ohio between on or about  4
January 1991 and 27 January 1991.  The applicant was on leave in  Ohio
during the charged period.

The applicant was tried by a general court-martial and found guilty of
the offenses.  The maximum punishment authorized for the offenses  for
which he was convicted was a dishonorable discharge, confinement for 8
years, forfeiture of all pay and  allowances,  and  reduction  to  the
lowest enlisted grade.  His sentence was well within the legal  limits
and appropriate punishment for the offenses committed.  The  applicant
provided no evidence to warrant a change in his sentence.

AFLSA/JAJMA complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that while he was in Japan  he  did  seek  mental
health help from the doctor at the mental  health  clinic  in  Misawa.
His concern was that he was seeing little  girls  as  sexual  objects.
The doctor did not give him any  medication  or  hospitalization.   He
also saw a doctor while at Bergstrom AFB, but he didn't give  him  any
medication or hospitalization either.   Please  use  this  information
when deciding his case.

A complete copy of the submission is at 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 an error or injustice.  After a  thorough  review  of
the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that a change in his sentence  is  warranted.    Applicant’s
contentions  are  duly  noted;  however,  we   do   not   find   these
uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and   by   themselves,   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by  the  Air  Force.  We
agree with the recommendation of the Associate Chief 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  of
having suffered either an error  or  an  injustice.  In  view  of  the
foregoing, we find  no  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  requested
relief.

________________________________________________________________

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-
2003-02085 in Executive  Session  on  17  September  2003,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Member
                 Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jun 03.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, undated.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Aug 03.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Response, dated 26 Aug 03.




                                   ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR
                                   Panel Chair