RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                        DOCKET  NUMBER:   BC-2004-
02603
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.00

                                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO



MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  21 AUGUST 2006


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge was excessive punishment.

In support of his application he submits  a  copy  of  his  college
transcript for the period 1998-99.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  on  17  Nov  88.   He
served on continuous active duty and entered his last enlistment on
16 Mar 92, for a period of  four  years  in  the  grade  of  senior
airman.  His highest grade held was  senior  airman.   He  received
four performance reports reflecting overall ratings of  (oldest  to
latest):  3, 4, 4, and 3.

Applicant was tried by a general court-martial on 3 Feb 94, for the
following offenses:  (1) He did on or about (a/o) 20 Nov 92, make a
false  claim  against  the  United  States   in   the   amount   of
approximately 1,152.27; (2) He did o/a 21 Aug 93 to o/a 8  Sep  93,
make and utter 14 checks totaling $900.53, to  the  Base  Exchange,
and did thereafter dishonorably fail to maintain sufficient  funds;
(3) He did o/a 1 Jan to o/a 23 Jan 94, dishonorably fail to  pay  a
just debt; and (4) He did o/a 13 Apr 93, with  intent  to  deceive,
falsify an official record (stating his wife lived  with  him  when
she did not).  Applicant pled guilty and was found  guilty  of  all
charges.

He was sentenced to a BCD, confinement for 15 months, and reduction
to the grade of airman basic.

Applicant was discharged with a BCD on 23 Jan 96.  He was  credited
with 5 years, 11 months, and 8  days  of  active  military  service
(excludes 1 year, 2 months,  and  29  days  of  lost  time  due  to
confinement).

A copy of a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) report,  provided
pursuant to the Board’s request, contained no entries subsequent to
the applicant’s discharge.  (Exhibit C)

___________________________________________________________________

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.

The applicant contends that his bad conduct discharge was excessive
punishment.  However,  the  overwhelming  evidence  indicates  that
there is no basis for upgrading the discharge characterization.

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 discharge.  The applicant was thus afforded all rights  granted
by statute and regulation.

Further, the applicant’s punitive discharge accurately reflects the
character of  his  service.   His  false  claims  and  dishonorable
actions regarding money all reflect poorly on the Air  Force.   The
maximum punishment  authorized  for  the  offenses  for  which  the
applicant was convicted was a dishonorable  discharge,  confinement
for 11  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.   Because  the  sentence
appropriately reflected the seriousness of the applicant’s  crimes,
an upgrade in discharge characterization is inappropriate.

The applicant has identified no error or injustice related  to  his
prosecution  or  the  sentence.   Because  the  applicant  presents
insufficient evidence to warrant upgrading the discharge, does  not
demonstrate an equitable basis for relief, and his  application  is
untimely, we recommend the Board deny the request.

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 16 Sep 05, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.   To  date,  a
reply has not been received by this office (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 error or injustice.   The  applicant’s
contention that his bad conduct discharge was excessive  punishment
is duly noted.  However, we do not find his  argument,  in  and  of
itself, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale  provided
by the Air Force office of primary responsibility.  The evidence of
record indicates the applicant  was  convicted  by  general  court-
martial for making false claims and for  his  dishonorable  actions
regarding money.  No evidence has been submitted which  would  lead
us to believe that the characterization of his service was improper
or unjust.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the
contrary, we find no basis upon which  to  favorably  consider  his
request.

___________________________________________________________________

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-
02603 in Executive Session on 2 November 2005, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
      Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
      Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jun 05, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 7 Sep 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Sep 05.




                                   JOHN B. HENNESSEY
                                   Panel Chair