RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02914
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was young and immature at the time of her enlistment and  she  did
not understand the responsibility of serving in the Armed Forces.

In support of  her  application  the  applicant  provided  a  personal
statement, a copy of DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or  Discharge
from Active Duty and a copy of Special Order number one, dated  6  Apr
04.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
3 Dec 02, for a term of 4 years.

At a Special Court Martial (SPCM) the applicant was convicted  of  the
following specifications:

            a.  Between  on  or  about  4  Oct  03  and  on  or  about
17 Oct 03, conspire to commit larceny of a  Hewlett  Packard  ZE  1230
laptop computer, valued at  about  $897.00  a  Compaq  Presario  725US
laptop computer, valued at  about  $980.00,  a  Compaq  Presario  1200
laptop computer, valued at about $480.00 and a X-Box Game  System  and
accessories, valued at about $385.00.

            b.  On or about 4 Oct 03, steal a Hewlett Packard ZE  1230
laptop computer, valued at about $879.00.

            c.  On or about 7 Oct 03, steal a  Compaq  Presario  725US
laptop computer, valued at about $980.00.

            d. On or about 10 Oct 03, steal  a  Compaq  Presario  1200
laptop computer, of a value of about $480.00.

            e. On or about 12 Oct 03, steal an X-Box game  system  and
accessories, valued at about $385.00.

She pleaded guilty to the charges and was  found  guilty  of  all  the
charges.  On 28 Nov 03, she was sentenced to a reduction to the  grade
of E-1, confinement for five (5) months, and a BCD.  On 28 Jun 04  she
was separated from the Air Force with a BCD.  She served a total of  1
year, 5 months and 18 days active duty service.

On 23 May 06, she submitted an application to the Air Force  Discharge
Review Board (AFDRB) requesting her BCD be upgraded  to  an  honorable
discharge.  The DRB concluded the discharge was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation,
was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge  authority,  and  the
applicant was provided  full  administrative  due  process.   The  DRB
further concluded that there existed no legal or equitable  basis  for
upgrade of her discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial.  DPSOS states 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.  The discharge was within the discretion of the  discharge
authority.

The DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
30 Oct 07, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  note  that  this  Board  is
without authority to reverse, set aside, or otherwise expunge a court-
martial conviction.  Rather,  in  accordance  with  Title  10,  United
States Code, Section 1552(f), actions by this  Board  are  limited  to
corrections to the record to reflect actions taken  by  the  reviewing
officials and action on the sentence  of  the  court-martial  for  the
purpose of clemency.  We also find no  evidence  which  indicates  the
applicant’s service characterization,  which  had  its  basis  in  her
conviction by special court-martial and was a part of the sentence  of
the military court, was improper or that it exceeded  the  limitations
set forth in the Uniform Code of Military  Justice  (UCMJ).   We  have
considered applicant's overall quality of service, the special  court-
martial  conviction  which  precipitated  the   discharge,   and   the
seriousness of the offense to which convicted.  Based on the  evidence
of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2007-
02914 in Executive Session on 8 Jan 07, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Teri G. Spoutz, Member
                 Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Aug 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 18 Oct 07.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Oct 07.




      JOHN B. HENNESSEY
      Panel Chair