RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02125
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad  conduct  discharge  be  upgraded  to  an  under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Since leaving the Air Force, he no longer indulges in drug activity
nor has he been in any  trouble.   He  is  a  responsible  citizen,
raised his children, and has been a role model for  them.   He  has
helped people get off drugs.

Applicant submitted a list of issues he believes  are  the  reasons
his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 Dec  75,  in  the
grade of airman  basic,  for  a  period  of  four  years.   He  was
honorably released from active duty on 17 Dec 79,  and  transferred
to the Air Force Reserve.  Applicant was honorably discharged  from
the Air Force Reserve on 13 Mar 80.

He reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 Mar 80, in  the  grade
of sergeant, for a period of four years.  His  highest  grade  held
was staff sergeant, effective and with a date of rank of 1 Aug  85.
He  received  seven  performance  reports  during  this  enlistment
reflecting overall ratings of (oldest to latest): 8, 7, 5 (ref), 9,
7, 8, and 9.

The applicant was tried by a general court-martial on  17  Apr  86,
and was charged with four  specifications:   (1)  Wrongful  use  of
marijuana on divers occasions between about 15  Jul  85  and  about
15 Nov 85; (2) Wrongful distribution of one-half  gram  of  cocaine
and some amount of marijuana, on or about 30 Aug 85;  (3)  Wrongful
possession of one-half gram of cocaine, on or about 30 Aug 85;  and
(4) Wrongful distribution of marijuana, on or about 6 Nov 85.   The
applicant pled guilty to all the specifications and charges.

The military judge found him guilty on all  charges  and  sentenced
him to a bad conduct discharge (BCD), confinement  for  18  months,
forfeitures of all pay and allowances, and reduction to  the  grade
of airman  basic  (E-1).   The  convening  authority  approved  the
sentence on 29 May 86, and the court-martial was affirmed on 2  Feb
87.  Applicant was discharged with a BCD on  23  Mar  87.   He  was
credited with 6 years, 1 month,  and  4  days  of  active  military
service (excludes 11  months  and  6  days  of  lost  time  due  to
confinement).

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM reviewed this application and recommended denial.   JAJM
states the applicant’s contentions are without merit and constitute
neither error nor injustice.

JAJM states 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’s  punitive  discharge   accurately   reflects   the
character of his service.  The maximum  punishment  authorized  for
the  offenses  for  which  the  applicant  was  convicted   was   a
dishonorable discharge, confinement of 37 years, total forfeitures,
and reduction to E-1.  The  sentence  was  well  within  the  legal
limits and was a fitting punishment  for  the  offenses  committed.
Despite  the  applicant’s  contentions,  the   sentence   was   not
disproportionate to either  the  offenses  or  his  prior  military
record.  Conversely, the requested relief, an upgrade in  discharge
characterization is inappropriate  given  the  seriousness  of  the
applicant’s crimes.

The applicant has identified no error or injustice related  to  his
prosecution or the sentence, and presents insufficient evidence  to
warrant any relief.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant contends his lack of timeliness in submitting his request
is due to his transition back to civilian life after  spending  ten
years in the  military.   He  feels  leading  a  life  of  positive
character and staying out of further  drug-related  behavior  is  a
more challenging 17 years than submitting  his  application  within
the three-year requirement.  He takes responsibility for  his  past
behavior and finds no error in the court-martial  proceedings.   He
does not understand why he was not offered rehabilitation.  The bad
conduct discharge has not stopped him from achieving anything.   It
does not seem right to imply lack of honorable service due  to  one
incident, which would be minor in the civilian world.

___________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.   The  applicant’s
discharge had its basis in his  trial  and  conviction  by  general
court-martial   for   drug-related   offenses.     After    careful
consideration of the available evidence,  we  found  no  indication
that the actions taken to effect his  discharge  were  improper  or
based on factors other  than  his  own  misconduct.   We  therefore
conclude that the discharge was proper and the characterization  of
his service was appropriate to the existing circumstances.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a  recommendation
that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.   In  this
respect, we have considered  the  applicant’s  overall  quality  of
service, the events that precipitated his  trial  by  court-martial
and subsequent discharge, and the absence of  evidence  related  to
his post-service activities and accomplishments.  On balance, we do
not believe clemency is warranted.

___________________________________________________________________

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-2004-
02125 in Executive Session on 19 October 2004, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:


      Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
      Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member
      Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jul 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 23 Aug 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Sep 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Oct 04.




                                   RITA S. LOONEY
                                   Panel Chair