RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01441
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  13 NOVEMBER 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His military defense attorneys mishandled his case  and  his  first  written
statement which was important evidence was destroyed.

When he informed his first sergeant of his drug problem it  was  a  cry  for
help.  He knew once he disclosed this information to his first  sergeant  he
would be discharged from the service.

Today he is a changed man and has learned his lesson and  is  proud  to  say
that he has not been in trouble since his ordeal in the Air Force.

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, then a senior airman,  having  entered  active  duty  in  the
Regular Air Force on 16 Feb 89, was arraigned at a general court-martial  on
5 Jun 96.  He stood accused of one charge of  being  absent  without  leave;
one charge of failure to obey a lawful order; and  one  charge  of  wrongful
use of cocaine.  He pled guilty to the AWOL and failure  to  obey  a  lawful
order charges, but was found guilty of all charges.  He was sentenced  to  a
bad conduct discharge, seven months of confinement, forfeiture  of  all  pay
and allowances, and reduction to the grade of airman  basic.   The  sentence
was adjudged and approved on 5 Jun 96.

Because the applicant’s approved sentence included a bad conduct  discharge,
the  United  States  Air  Force  Court  of  Criminal  Appeals  reviewed  the
applicant’s conviction.  On 12 Feb 97, the  court  affirmed  the  conviction
and the sentence.  The applicant  petitioned  the  United  States  Court  of
Appeals for the Armed Forces for review.  On 5 Mar 98, the decision  of  the
United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was affirmed.

Applicant was discharged with a BCD on 13 Aug 98.  He was  credited  with  9
years, 5 months, and 27 days of active military service.

A copy of a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) report, provided  pursuant
to the Board’s request, contained information pertaining to his 1996  court-
martial conviction, and no entries subsequent to the applicant’s  discharge.
 (Exhibit C)

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM  reviewed  this   application   and   recommends   denial.    The
applicant’s contentions are untimely, without merit and  constitute  neither
error nor injustice.  The applicant requests an upgrade of the character  of
his service.  However, the evidence indicated that there  is  no  basis  for
upgrading  the  discharge  characterization.   The  appropriateness  of  the
applicant’s sentence, which was well 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.

JAJM states the applicant’s bad conduct 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 for 7 years and one  month,  reduction  to  E-1,  and
total forfeiture of pay and allowances.  The sentence  was  appropriate  for
the  offenses  and  the  requested   relief,   an   upgrade   in   discharge
characterization, is inappropriate given the seriousness of the  applicant’s
crimes.  An upgrade in discharge  characterization  is  inappropriate  given
the nature of the applicant’s crimes and discharge.

The applicant  has  failed  to  identity  the  existence  of  any  error  or
injustice related to his court-martial and resulting sentence.  Neither  has
he  presented  any  facts  or  circumstance  indicating  that  an  injustice
occurred.   The  applicant  presents  insufficient   evidence   to   warrant
upgrading the discharge and does not  demonstrate  an  equitable  basis  for
relief.

The AFLOA/JAJM complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 16 Jun 06, a copy of the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of  this  date,  this
office has received no response.

________________________________________________________________

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  contentions  that  his
military defense attorneys mishandled his case and  his  admission  that  he
had a drug problem was a cry for help are duly noted.  However,  we  do  not
find his  arguments,  in  and  of  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to
override the rationale provided by the  Associate  Chief,  Military  Justice
Division.  The evidence of record indicates the applicant was  convicted  by
general court-martial of wrongful use of cocaine, being  AWOL,  and  failure
to obey a lawful order.  No evidence has been submitted which would lead  us
to believe that the  characterization  of  his  service  was  improper.   In
addition, the applicant has not provided  any  documentation  pertaining  to
his post-service activities and accomplishments for us to conclude that  the
characterization of his  service  should  be  upgraded  based  on  clemency.
Without such evidence, 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-2006-
01441 in Executive Session on 9 August 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

      Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Panel Chair
      Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member


The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2006-
01441 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 12 Jun 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jun 06.




                                             CHRISTOPHER D. CAREY
                                             Panel Chair