RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03281

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be  upgraded  so  he  can  reenlist  in  the
National Guard.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had the honor to serve his country and  the  Air  Force  for  over  17  ½
years.  He brought to the military an artistic ability that  was  beneficial
to his field and recognized by the highest echelons.  While his artwork  was
exploited, he nurtured his skill and his pride.  At the same  time,  he  was
suffering from a debilitating disease - alcoholism.

After receiving his fourth honorable discharge, he divorced  the  mother  of
his child and foolishly married an Air  Force  officer  for  all  the  wrong
reasons.  At his time, alcoholism took over his  life  and  he  hit  bottom.
The Air Force recognized the problem and he believes they gave him a  chance
to overcome but to no avail.  In his sick mind, he equated his marriage  and
the military, as one and he wanted to get out.  He looks back on  his  court
martial as the worst day of his life.

He appeals to the Board to understand that he loved the  Air  Force  and  to
upgrade his discharge would not only recognize his  16  years  of  honorable
service  but  would  restore  his  pride.   Since  his  separation,  he  has
recognized his disease, and  with  the  grace  of  God,  he  has  maintained
complete sobriety for over three years.  He has been very involved with  his
church, AA and the community.  In retrospect, he  knows  his  conduct  would
have been to of a stellar career airman if not for the cunning and  baffling
disease in which he suffered.

His ultimate goal for this upgrade is to make him eligible to  re-enter  the
National Guard where his  talents  could  be  a  viable  asset  serving  the
country, which he loves.

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
character references, a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of  Release  or
Discharge from Active Duty, a copy of Statement of Service  and  samples  of
his artwork.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on
31 July 1978 and was  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  technical
sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank  of  1
February 1991.

The applicant was tried by a  general  court-martial  at  Nellis  Air  Force
Base, Nevada on 8 August 1995.  The applicant  was  charged  with  violating
Article 112a of the UMCJ  by  wrongfully  using  metamphetamine  on  diverse
occasions between on or about 30 April 1995 and on or  about  16  May  1995.
In accordance with his pleas, the applicant was  found  guilty  in  a  trial
before a judge alone.  The court sentenced him  to  receive  a  bad  conduct
discharge, six months of confinement, forfeiture of $427.00  pay  per  month
for six months, and reduction to the  grade  of  E-1  (airmen  basic).   The
convening authority approved the sentence as  adjudged  on     20  September
1995.  On 14 December 1995, the confinement portion of applicant’s  sentence
was remitted, effective 19 December 1995.   On  30  January  1996,  the  Air
Force Court of Criminal  Appeals  affirmed  the  findings  and  sentence  as
approved.  The US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied his  petition
for review on  12 April 1996.  The  applicant  was  discharge  on  9  August
1996.

The following is a resume of the applicant's  last  6  Enlisted  Performance
Reports:

      PERIOD ENDING    PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

            20 Nov 94        1 (Referral)
            14 Mar 94        5
            30 Aug 93        3
            30 Aug 92        5
            30 Aug 91        4
            30 Aug 90        5

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant's request and states that  the
applicant used methamphetamine.  For that offense, the applicant  was  tried
by 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 E-1.  The  sentence  was  well  within  the
legal limits and was an appropriate punishment for the  offenses  committed.

While clemency is an option, there is no reason for the  Board  to  exercise
clemency in this case.  The applicant’s EPRs reflect that the applicant  was
quite capable of doing good work and performing at a very high caliber,  but
that  he  was  unreliable.   He  did  not  maintain  his  high  standard  of
work/behavior consistently.  Despite his  incredible  artistic  ability  and
great work on behalf of the Air Force, his illegal  use  of  methamphetamine
amounts to bad conduct.  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 crimes.  It would  be  unjust  to
change that characterization to one that hundreds of  thousands  of  airmen,
who  have  served  honorably,  also  carry.   The  facts  do  indicate   the
applicant’s problems and decisions in his personal life  likely  contributed
to his drug use.  Nonetheless, his misfortune cannot serve as  justification
for his bad conduct.  His  astonishing  talents  would  be  helpful  to  any
organization.  However, his talents do not overshadow his misconduct.

The military  judge  and  the  Air  Force  Court  of  Military  Review  were
convinced  of  the  applicant’s  guilty  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.   His
sentence was appropriate.  The  applicant  did  not  serve  this  enlistment
honorably.  His sentence was appropriate.  The  applicant  has  provided  no
evidence of a clear  error  or  injustice  related  to  the  sentence.   The
applicant presents no justification to warrant  upgrading  his  bad  conduct
discharge and does not demonstrated  an  equitable  basis  for  relief.   In
addition, his request, made more than seven years after his  conviction,  is
untimely.

AFLSA/JAJM complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  9
January 2004 for review and comment 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 an  error  or  injustice.  After  reviewing  all  the  evidence
presented, we are not persuaded  that  action  to  upgrade  the  applicant's
discharge based on clemency is appropriate. The  applicant's  discharge  had
its basis in his trial and conviction by a duly constituted  military  court
and upheld by the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the  US  Court  of
Appeals  for  the  Armed   Forces.    While   we   find   his   post-service
accomplishments and artistic abilities commendable, and notwithstanding  his
otherwise good service record, in view of the  extreme  seriousness  of  the
misconduct he  committed  (i.e.,  the  use  of  methamphetamine  on  diverse
occasions), we do not believe a sufficiently  lengthy  period  of  time  has
elapsed since the applicant's discharge to warrant the exercise of  clemency
at the present time.

4.  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  involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2003-03281
in Executive Session on 17 February 2004, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Vice Chair
                 Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
                 Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 16 Dec 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Feb 04.




                                   MARILYN THOMAS
                                   Vice Chair