RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00600
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  21 JUNE 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge characterization was unfair because other airmen were given  a
general discharge.

In support of the application, the applicant submits letter  from  SAF/MRBR.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 9 February 1988, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  at  the
age of 19 in the grade of airman basic for a period  of  6  years.   He  was
progressively promoted to the rank of senior airman  effective  and  with  a
date of rank of 14 August 1990.

The following is a  resume  of  performance  reports,  commencing  with  the
report closing 8 February 1989

      PERIOD ENDING    OVERALL RATING

      18 Feb 89        8
      08 Oct 89        3
      29 May 90        3
      29 May 91        4
      29 May 92        3
      29 May 93        3
      29 May 94        4
      29 May 95        1

On 23 June 1988, the applicant received an Article 15 for failure to  go  at
the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  For  this  incident  he
was ordered to forfeit $50.00 of his pay, perform seven days of extra  duty,
and was reduced to the grade of airman (suspended).  On  15  February  1990,
he received an Article 15 for being absent from his place of  duty  from  20
December 1989 to 23 January 1990.  For this offense, he was reduced  to  the
grade of airman (suspended).  On 6 April 1995, he  received  an  Article  15
for wrongful use of marijuana.  For this offense,  he  was  reduced  to  the
grade of airman first class.

On 17 August 1995, pursuant to  his  pleas  of  guilty,  the  applicant  was
convicted by a special court-martial trial for  wrongful  use  of  marijuana
between on or about 11 May 1995 and on or about 16 May  1995,  in  violation
of Article 112a, UCMJ.  The applicant was sentenced to  be  reduced  to  the
pay grade of airman basic, to be confined for 30 days, and to be  discharged
with a bad conduct discharge.  On 14 August 1995, the staff  judge  advocate
recommended approval of the sentence as adjudged.

On 23 October  1996,  the  applicant  was  discharged  with  a  bad  conduct
discharge.  He had served 8 years, 7 months and 23 days on active duty.   He
had 92 days of lost time due to confinement.

On 16 August 2001, the applicant submitted  a  similar  appeal  to  the  Air
Force Discharge Review Board  (AFDRB).   On  21  November  2002,  the  AFDRB
concluded  that  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge  regulation  and  was  within  the
discretion of the discharge authority, and that the applicant  was  provided
full administrative due process.  However, as an act of clemency, the  board
further concluded the applicant’s characterization of  discharge  should  be
changed to under other than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC),  but  found  no
basis to change the reason for  discharge.   The  AFDRB  determined  further
upgrade of the discharge was  not  considered  appropriate  because  of  the
seriousness of the applicant’s misconduct for which he pled guilty  and  was
found guilty at trial.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation  (FBI)
provided a copy of an investigative report pertaining to the  former  member
(Identification Record No. 314680FA0) at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  that   based   on   the
documentation on file in the master personnel  records,  the  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge  regulation.   DPPRS  notes  the  applicant  did  not  submit  any
evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  during  the
discharge process, and provided  no  facts  warranting  an  upgrade  of  his
discharge.

DPPRS’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment on 22 April 2005.  On 18  May  2005,  the  applicant  was
forwarded a copy of the FBI report for his review and comments.  As of  this
date,  this  office  has  received  no  response   to   the   aforementioned
correspondence (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We are not persuaded  by  the  evidence
presented that  the  separation  characterization  received  by  the  former
member should be changed.  The former member's discharge was  based  on  his
trial and conviction by a general court-martial.   While  law  precludes  us
from reversing a court-martial conviction, we are authorized to correct  the
records to reflect actions taken by reviewing officials and to  take  action
on the sentence of a military court based on clemency.  There is nothing  in
the available record that would cause us  to  disturb  the  actions  of  the
reviewing officials or to warrant a correction.  In  addition,  in  view  of
the applicant’s apparent involvement with  civilian  law  enforcement  since
his separation and absent other evidence by the  applicant  attesting  to  a
successful post  service  adjustment,  we  are  not  inclined  to  favorably
consider his  request  based  on  clemency.   Accordingly,  the  applicant’s
request is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice 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 22 June 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Panel Chair
                 Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Member
                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2004-00600:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Apr 05.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s available Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Apr 05.
      Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Apr 05 and
                  AFBCMR, dated 18 May 05.
      Exhibit E.  FBI Report.








      FREDERICK R. BEAMAN III
      Panel Chair