RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02820     CASE 02
      INDEX CODE:  105.00
      COUNSEL:  NONE


      HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  20 MARCH 2008

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

It appears the applicant is requesting that his court-martial conviction  be
set aside.

In his rebuttal (Exhibit E) to the Air  Force  evaluation,  applicant  makes
the following additional requests:

    a.  His DD Form 214 be voided.

    b.  He be provided medical attention and  pay  for  the  period  he  was
denied medical benefits.

    c.  He be reinstated into military service on the grounds of clemency.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The court imposed cruel and unusual punishment, which was not authorized.

The court  martial  was  improperly  constituted  in  that  it  contained  a
fictitious officer, lacked jurisdiction over him or the events charged,  and
contained charges that lacked constitutionally required fair notice.

In support of his application, the applicant submits a  23-page  summary  of
the events leading to his court-martial as well  as  his  arguments  against
the actions taken against him, copies of regulations,  references  to  legal
cases, copies of  documents  related  to  his  court-martial,  his  previous
AFBCMR case, and other documents.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Te applicant entered active duty as a commissioned officer in the Air  Force
on 12 Feb 87.  On 17 May 2000, the applicant, who was  then  a  Regular  Air
Force officer serving in the grade of captain, was tried by a  general-court
martial and, pursuant to his pleas was convicted on five  specifications  of
wrongful possession and/or use of,  with  the  intent  to  deceive,  various
documents bearing his then alias name of  David  Howard  (H)  Hoffman.   The
applicant was sentenced to  dismissal  from  the  Air  Force,  three  years’
confinement, and forfeiture of all pay  and  allowances.   So  much  of  the
sentence that provided for  a  dismissal,  confinement  for  22  months  and
forfeiture all pay and allowances was approved and  affirmed  on  17  August
2000.  On 27 Aug 03, the Secretary of the Air  Force  approved  and  ordered
his dismissal to be executed.

On 15 September 2003, the applicant was dismissed from the  Air  Force.   He
had served 14 years, 6 months and 2 days of active duty.  The period 17  May
2000 to 22 February 2002 was time lost due to confinement.

On 15 Sep 04, the AFBCMR denied a request from the applicant to  change  the
name on his DD Form 214 to David Howard Hoffman (Misc Info).

Additional relevant facts pertaining to applicant’s court-martial  extracted
from the applicant’s military records are contained in the  letter  prepared
by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s requests.   The  applicant
fails to specify what relief he seeks from the Board.  Moreover, the  issues
of which he complains and seeks  correction  are  outside  the  purview  and
jurisdiction of the Board.  Under  10  U.S.C.  1552(f),  which  amended  the
basic  corrections  board  legislation,  the  AFBCMR’s  ability  to  correct
records related to  courts-martial,  is  limited.   The  effect  of  section
1552(f) is that the AFBCMR is without authority to reverse,  set  aside,  or
otherwise expunge a court-martial conviction that occurred  on  or  after  5
May 50.

JAJM states the applicant  availed  himself  of  all  his  appellate  rights
granted by statute and regulation.  His assertions of errors were  carefully
considered by the appellate  courts  and  found  to  have  no  merit.   Both
conviction and sentence were reviewed and found to be  correct  in  law  and
fact.  The appropriate authorities have already reviewed the  issues  raised
by the applicant and rejected their validity.

JAJM states the applicant had all the information he presents in support  of
his allegations at the time of his trial, but he chose to  plead  guilty  to
all charges in exchange for  a  limitation  of  confinement  time.   He  was
convicted of bigamy, of numerous  false  official  statements,  of  using  a
false identify, and of possessing and using false documents including a  New
York State birth certificate, Social Security  Account  Number  card,  Texas
and Florida driver’s licenses, and a U.S.  passport.   JAJM  further  opines
the applicant’s sentence accurately reflects the character of  his  service.
The maximum punishment authorized for the offenses for which  the  applicant
was convicted was a dismissal, confinement for 47  years,  total  forfeiture
of pay and allowances, and the possibility of a fine.   JAJM  concludes  the
adjudged sentence was well within the legal limits.

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responds to the Air Force evaluation in a  six-page  statement
with five attachments.  The applicant seeks to clarify his  requests  before
the Board.  He states the purpose  of  his  requests  to  the  Board  is  to
determine whether there was error or injustice in the following actions:

    a.  Holding him in appellate leave status while refusing to issue him  a
military identification card (thereby denying legal entitlements).

    b.  Prohibiting his use of his civilian  identification,  including  his
Social Security Account Number.

    c.  Refusing to provide him equal protection of the law by  refusing  to
investigate a military member he believed used an assumed name in  a  scheme
to defraud him because of the person’s gender.

    d.  Issuing him a DD Form 214  which  was  false  in  numerous  regards,
including that he was fraudulently inducted and  otherwise  not  subject  to
the alleged court-martial.

In addition to his arguments  against  the  Air  Force  recommendations,  he
requests that his DD 214 be voided, he be provided medical attention, he  be
paid for the period he was denied medical benefits,  and  he  be  reinstated
into military service on the grounds of clemency.

The applicant’s 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 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 an injustice.  We took notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case;  however,  we  agree
with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force  office  of  primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion  that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.   Therefore,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling  basis  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  AFBMCR  BC-2006-02820  in
Executive Session on 14 Mar 07 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Ms. Maureen B. Higgins, Member
      Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Sep 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  AFLSA/JAJM Letter, dated 21 Dec 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Dec 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Feb 07.



                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair