RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00246
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  28 JUL 2007


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He takes full responsibility for the incidents  that  happened  and
was relieved in pleading guilty to the charges.  He was punished in
full.  He was sentenced to nine months of confinement, reduction in
grade to E-1, forfeited all pay and allowances and received  a  bad
conduct discharge.

Applicant served over seven years in the Air Force,  and  prior  to
joining the Air Force he had a clean record, not  even  a  speeding
ticket.  This was also evident in his Air  Force  career,  with  no
negative  documentation  in  his  military  records  prior  to  the
incident in question.

He no longer drinks and has almost three years of sobriety.  He  is
happily married and has a new career.   His  future  plans  include
attending college to pursue a dream of receiving  his  Bachelor  of
Science  degree  in  Nursing  and  eventually  becoming   a   Nurse
Practitioner.  However, the BCD will hinder his career goals.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement;
a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty, dated 24 Dec 03; copies of  his  enlisted  performance
reports (EPRs) from 23 Oct 96 – 22 Jun 02, and a letter of  support
from the victim he assaulted, dated 17 Dec 02.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to the events under review, applicant enlisted in the Regular
Air Force on 23 Oct 96 for a period of four years in the  grade  of
airman basic.  He reenlisted on 25 Oct 99  for  a  period  of  four
years in the grade of airman first  class.   He  was  progressively
promoted to the rank of staff sergeant with an effective  date  and
date of rank of 1 Feb 02.

On 7 Jan 03, applicant was tried by a General  Court  Martial.   He
was charged with (Charge I) two specifications  of  unlawful  entry
with intent to commit a criminal offense  (indecent  assault),  and
(Charge II) one specification of  indecent  assault  that  occurred
while in temporary duty (TDY) status.  Applicant  pled  guilty  and
was found guilty of all three specifications.  He was sentenced  to
reduction in grade to airman  basic,  forfeiture  of  all  pay  and
allowances for nine months, confinement for nine months, and a  bad
conduct discharge.

On 24 Dec 03, applicant was  discharged  pursuant  to  the  General
Court-Martial Order, with a bad conduct discharge.  He was credited
with 7 years, 2 months, and 1 day of active duty service (excluding
time lost for confinement from  23  Jan  03  –  22  Aug  03).   The
convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged and appellate
review  was  completed.   The  final  order  was   promulgated   on
11 Jan 05.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM states the application should be  denied  as  meritless.
The applicant is not contending that any specific actions have been
taken by reviewing  authorities  that  require  correction  of  his
record.  Thus, any decision regarding his discharge status must  be
done as a matter of clemency.  The applicant, however,  sets  forth
no basis for clemency other than his prior service record and that,
since his discharge, he longer drinks, has  had  no  further  legal
problems,  and  is  pursuing  another  career.   While  he  may  be
commended for these accomplishments, it does not suggest  that  the
findings of guilt or punishment were unjust.

Committing an indecent assault on a female service member  sleeping
in her dormitory room, as well as  unlawful  entry  into  dormitory
rooms with the intent to commit such assaults, are serious  crimes.
As such, a general court-martial was an appropriate  forum.   There
is no allegation of impropriety in the manner in which  the  court-
martial was conducted and the applicant was afforded all the rights
accorded  under  law.   He  chose   to   plead   guilty   to   each
specification, knowing  full  well  the  possible  punishment  (the
maximum was  15  years  confinement,  forfeiture  of  all  pay  and
allowances, reduction to airman basic,  a  dishonorable  discharge,
and a fine).  Given the sentence he received, there is no  evidence
of a clear error or injustice related to the sentence.   There  is,
therefore, no reason required by law to grant the relief requested.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the evaluation, the applicant states his request
is with merit.  He deserved punishment, which is why he pled guilty
to all offenses.  He knew what  he  was  pleading  guilty  to,  and
admitted to the incidents in all of his  statements.   He  believes
this to be honorable, and will not be led to believe otherwise.

In similar cases, victim impact is  a  considering  factor  towards
punishment.  The victim in this case,  requested  leniency  on  his
behalf and that she would not desire the rest  of  the  applicant’s
life to be ruined concerning an alcohol related incident.  He hopes
that race has not been a factor in his case.

In support of his appeal, applicant provided a host of  letters  of
character references, from  family  members,  friends,  former  co-
workers/supervisors, and associates.

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

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient  relevant   evidence   has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   Applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, we did not find his  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 unlawful entry with intent to commit  a  criminal
offense and one specification of indecent assault  resulting  in  a
bad conduct discharge.  No evidence has been presented which  would
lead us to believe that the  applicant’s  service  characterization
was improper.  The Board  noted  the  applicant’s  prior  honorable
period of service and the numerous letters of  character  reference
and support submitted with his appeal.  Nonetheless, in view of the
seriousness of the offenses committed during the period of  service
under  review,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  an  upgrade  of  the
characterization of his discharge is warranted.  Therefore, in  the
absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we  adopt  the  Air
Force rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the  applicant
has not been the victim of an error or injustice and conclude  that
no basis exists to recommend granting the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

___________________________________________________________________




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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2006-00246 in Executive Session  on  6  April  2006,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
      Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
      Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Jan 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFLSA/JAJM, dated 16 Feb 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Mar 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Mar 06, w/atchs.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                   Panel Chair