RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01185
            INDEX CODE:  100.00, 110.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  10 FEB 2006


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Applicant is requesting a full review of her service.

In her response to the Air Force  evaluation,  applicant  requested
upgrade of her bad conduct discharge (BCD).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She received a General Court-Martial in Oct  91.   She  served  two
months of a six months sentence and was released on good  behavior.
She had to wait  four  years  before  she  received  her  discharge
certificate.

In  support  of  her  appeal,   applicant   submitted   copies   of
correspondence from the Veterans of  Foreign  Wars  of  the  United
States (VFW) local office;  a  copy  of  her  DD  Form  214,  dated
6 Dec 95; transcript for  Bachelor  of  Science  degree  (May  97),
dated 25 Feb 05; Maryland State Criminal Record, dated 16  Nov  04,
and several letters of character reference from university  faculty
members, co-workers, her pastor and other supporting documents.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 Aug 83.  Prior  to
the events under review, she was promoted  to  the  rank  of  staff
sergeant  (E-5)  with  an  effective  date  and  date  of  rank  of
25 Oct 91.

A resume of applicant’s last five airman performance reports  (APR)
(ratings from 0-9) and enlisted performance reports  (EPR)  (rating
from 1-5) profile follows:

            PERIOD CLOSING              OVERALL EVALUATION


                  04  Oct  87                                     9
(APR)
                 04 Oct 88                                    9
                 18 Jun 89                                    9
                 05 Dec 89                               4 (EPR)
                 05 Dec 90                                    4

On 8 Oct 91, applicant was convicted  by  a  General  Court-Martial
with four specifications of fraud  against  the  United  States  in
violation of Article 132 of the Uniform Code of  Military  Justice.
She pled not guilty to two specifications of forgery, on  or  about
(o/a) 2 Apr 91 and  o/a  12  Apr  91,  by  submitting  a  completed
DD Form 1351-2 (Travel Voucher) for approval and  payment,  thereby
making a claim against the United States in the amount of  $628.35;
and pled  guilty  to  two  specifications  of  fraud,  between  o/a
2 Apr 91 and o/a 12 Apr 91, by submitting two DD Forms 2278, Weight
Tickets, and a Do-It-Yourself (DITY)  Certification,  for  approval
and payment, thereby, making a claim against the United  States  in
the amount of $3, 293.01 for reimbursement for the DITY move.   She
was found guilty of  two  specifications  of  fraud,  and  the  two
specifications of forgery were withdrawn after arraignment.

She was sentenced to reduction in  grade  to  airman  basic  (E-1),
confinement for eight months, forfeiture of pay and allowances, and
a bad conduct discharge.  Her sentence was adjudged on  8  Oct  91.
On 25 Nov 91, the convening authority approved the sentence, except
for confinement.  The convening authority reduced confinement  from
eight months to 60 days.  On 9  Nov  95,  the  convening  authority
approved the bad conduct discharge.

On 6 Dec 95, applicant was discharged pursuant to the General Court-
Martial Order, with a bad conduct discharge.  She was credited with
11 years, 10 months, and 3 days of active duty (excludes time  lost
for confinement from 8 October 1991 to 31 March 1992).

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommended denial of the applicant’s  request  to  have
her bad conduct discharge upgraded.  The applicant,  then  a  staff
sergeant, was charged with four specifications of fraud against the
United States, in violation of Article 132 of the  UCMJ.   She  had
submitted a false travel voucher and a false  claim  for  a  Do-It-
Yourself (DITY) move.  Pursuant to a pretrial agreement,  applicant
pled guilty to two  specifications  of  fraud  and  the  two  other
specifications were withdrawn following arraignment.  On  8 Oct 91,
applicant  was  found  guilty  and  sentenced  to  a  bad   conduct
discharge, confinement for eight months, forfeiture of all pay  and
allowances, and reduction in grade to airman basic.  On 25 Nov  91,
the convening authority approved  the  sentence,  and  reduced  the
confinement from eight months to 60 days.  Applicant  was  released
from confinement in Dec 91.

Because the applicant’s approved sentence included  a  bad  conduct
discharge, the discharge could not be executed until  there  was  a
final judgment as to legality of  the  proceedings  by  the  United
States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.  The court affirmed the
conviction and the sentence.  On 9 Nov 95, the convening  authority
approved the bad conduct discharge.

Applicant requested  a  full  review  of  her  service.   Applicant
committed fraud against the United States by filing a false  travel
voucher and false DITY claim.  To  her  credit,  she  admitted  her
wrongs and pleaded guilty to two specifications of fraud.  Prior to
the acceptance of the guilty plea, applicant explained her wrongful
conduct in detail.  The matter of guilt was determined  before  the
guilty  plea  was  accepted.   There  is  no  indication  of  error
regarding the finding of guilt.

There is no basis for upgrading applicant’s discharge or  otherwise
granting  clemency.   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 maximum punishment authorized for  the  offenses  for
which the applicant was convicted  was  a  dishonorable  discharge,
confinement for five years, forfeitures of all pay and  allowances,
and reduction to E-1.  The applicant’s sentence was well within the
legal  limits  and  was  a  fitting  punishment  for  the  offenses
committed.   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 her sentence.  In  this  case,
the convening authority, when  approving  the  sentence,  chose  to
reduce confinement from eight months to 60 days.  The applicant was
afforded all rights granted by statute  and  regulation.   She  has
identified no error or injustice  related  to  her  prosecution  of
sentence.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In the applicant’s response, she amends her request to  include  an
upgrade of the characterization of her BCD.   She  states  she  was
tried twice by the Air Force for the  incident.   The  first  trial
ended in a mistrial because of prosecutorial  misconduct.   By  the
time the second trial convened, she was past the end  term  of  her
initial enlistment contract and just wanted to continue on with her
life.  She pled guilty not because she believed, then or  now,  she
was truly guilty, but because she felt that she had no choice.  The
charges relating to the false travel voucher  and  the  false  DITY
move claim were in fact errors in  paperwork  and  not  willful  or
intentional fraud.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

___________________________________________________________________

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.   Applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, a majority of  the  Board  did
not find her arguments  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the
rationale provided by the Military Justice Division.  The  evidence
of record reflects the applicant was convicted  by  general  court-
martial for two specifications of fraud resulting in a bad  conduct
discharge.  The majority of the Board found no  evidence  has  been
presented which would lead them to  believe  that  the  applicant’s
service  characterization  was  improper.   The  Board  noted   the
applicant’s prior honorable periods  of  service,  the  letters  of
character  reference   submitted   with   her   appeal,   and   her
accomplishments since leaving the service.  Nonetheless, in view of
the seriousness of the offenses  committed  during  the  period  of
service under review, the majority of the Board  is  not  persuaded
that an  upgrade  of  the  characterization  of  her  discharge  is
warranted.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the
contrary, the majority of the Board adopts the Air Force  rationale
as the basis for its conclusion that the applicant has not been the
victim of an error or injustice and concludes that no basis  exists
to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

___________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

The majority of the panel finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2005-01185 in Executive Session on 21 December 2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
      Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
      Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of  the  application.
Ms. Collins voted to grant the applicant’s request, but she  does  not
wish to submit a Minority Report. The following  documentary  evidence
was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Apr 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFLSA/JAJM, dated 5 Jul 05.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jul 05.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Jul 05.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR  BC-2005-01185





MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                        FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY
RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  The majority found that
applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice
and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and
their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept
their recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                  JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                  Director
                                  Air Force Review Boards Agency