RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01446
            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:

The punishment he received in June of 1992  for  the  ingestion  of  a
controlled substance (LSD) was  harsh  and  unjust.   He  served  five
months of confinement, was demoted to airman basic and was given a Bad
Conduct discharge.  Other than this isolated  incident,  his  military
career and civilian record were flawless.

The applicant provides two  personal  statements  in  support  of  his
appeal.

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30  March  1989  for  a
period of four years.  Prior  to  the  events  under  review,  he  was
progressively promoted to  the  grade  of  senior  airman  (E-4).   He
received two Enlisted  Performance  Reports  in  which  the  promotion
recommendations were “3s.”

On 28 January 1992, the applicant was tried by a general court-martial
at Bergstrom AFB, TX.  He was charged with  wrongful  use  of  LSD  in
violation of Article 112a, UCMJ.  The applicant  pled  and  was  found
guilty in a trial by judge alone.  The court sentenced him  to  a  bad
conduct discharge, confinement for five months, forfeiture of all  pay
and allowances, and reduction to the grade of airman basic.

On 3 February 1993, the applicant was discharged with  a  bad  conduct
discharge.  He served 3 years 5 months and  23  days  of  active  duty
service.  Time lost was the period 28 January 1992 through 9 June 1992
due to confinement.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/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.

The applicant wrongfully used LSD.  He knew it was illegal to  do  so,
as reflected in his responses to the military judge during his  guilty
plea inquiry.  For that  offense,  the  applicant  was  tried  in  the
appropriate forum - a general court-martial.  The  maximum  punishment
authorized for the offense for which the applicant was convicted was a
dishonorable discharge, confinement for five years, forfeiture of  all
pay and allowances, and reduction to the lowest enlisted  grade.   The
sentence  was  well  within  the  legal  limits  and  was  appropriate
punishment for the offense committed.

While clemency is an option, there is  no  reason  for  the  Board  to
exercise clemency in this case.   Consequently,  the  use  of  illegal
substances may not be addressed in the  same  manner  as  in  civilian
criminal justice systems.

The military judge and the Air Force Court  of  Military  Review  were
convinced of the applicant’s guilt beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.   His
sentence is appropriate.  The applicant did not serve this  enlistment
honorably.   There  are  consequences  for  criminal  behavior.    The
military judge, convening authority and the appellate court believed a
bad conduct discharge was an appropriate consequence  that  accurately
characterized his military service and his crime.  It would be  unjust
to change that characterization to one that hundreds of  thousands  of
airmen, who have served honorably,  also  carry.   The  applicant  has
provided no evidence of a clear error  or  injustice  related  to  the
sentence.  The applicant presents no evidence to warrant upgrading the
bad conduct discharge, nor has he demonstrated an equitable basis  for
relief.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 11 July 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within  30  days.   As  of  this
date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or  injustice.   After  reviewing  the
evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s  records
are in error  or  that  he  has  been  the  victim  of  an  injustice.
Therefore, we agree with opinions and recommendations of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.   We  also
find insufficient  evidence  to  warrant  a  recommendation  that  the
discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.   We  have  considered
applicant’s overall quality of service, the events which  precipitated
the  discharge,  and  available  evidence  related   to   post-service
activities and accomplishments.  On balance, we do  not  believe  that
clemency is warranted.  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 25 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                       Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Member
                       Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Apr 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 24 Jun 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jun 03.




                             ROBERT S. BOYD
                             Panel Chair