RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2009-04352

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her  Bad  Conduct  Discharge  (BCD)  be  upgraded  to  General  (Under
Honorable Conditions).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  She was recently homeless due to a divorce and has  lived  in  two
shelters.  She is currently enrolled at a  community  college  and  is
scheduled to graduate in the spring of 2011.  She is a  single  parent
to four brilliant, willful children and cannot count  on  any  support
from her ex-husband except court-ordered child support.

2.  She learned a valuable lesson while in confinement and other  than
her bad marriage, has not been in any trouble.

In support of her appeal  the  applicant  submits  a  letter,  several
letters of reference, and a copy of her college degree plan.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 19 March 1990 in
the grade of airman basic and was promoted  to  the  grade  of  airman
first class effective 1 May 1990.

The applicant received two enlisted performance reports  (EPR)  during
her service, one closing on  19  November  1991  and  the  second,  26
January 1993. The report closing 19 November 1991 reflects an  overall
rating of “3.”  On  the  report  closing       26  January  1993,  the
applicant’s Rater and Indorser rated her an overall “4.”  However, the
report was marked down to an overall rating of  “2”  by  the  squadron
commander.  The commander noted that while the applicant’s performance
in the work center was acceptable, she did not possess  the  qualities
required of an Air Force member.

In January 1993, the applicant  was  arraigned  at  a  Special  Court-
Martial on the following offenses:

      1.  That the applicant did, on or about 22  September  1992,  in
violation of Article 132, Uniform Code of  Military  Justice,  make  a
fraudulent claim against the United States in the amount  of  $1026.40
by presenting a travel voucher she had prepared for approval when  she
knew it to be false and fraudulent.  The applicant pled guilty and was
found guilty of the offense.

      2.  That the applicant  did  sometime  during  August  1992,  in
violation of Article 81, Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ),
conspire with another airman to commit an offense under the  UCMJ,  to
wit:  present a false claim against the United States, in violation of
Article 132 of the UCMJ.  The applicant  pled  guilty  and  was  found
guilty of the offense.

The applicant was sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge, forfeiture  of
$535.00 pay for two months, confinement for 45 days, and reduction  to
airman basic (E-1).  The applicant was subsequently  discharged  on  1
November 1993 with a Bad Conduct Discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request.

The applicant has identified no error  or  injustice  related  to  her
prosecution or the sentence.  The applicant pled guilty  at  trial  to
the charges and specifications.  On  the  court’s  acceptance  of  the
applicant’s guilty plea, it received evidence in aggravation, as  well
as in extenuation and mitigation, prior  to  crafting  an  appropriate
sentence for the crimes committed.   The  applicant  made  an  unsworn
statement in her own behalf during  the  presentencing  phase  of  the
trial.   The  military  judge  took  all   of   these   factors   into
consideration when imposing the  applicant’s  sentence.   The  imposed
sentence was below the maximum possible sentence of a BCD, confinement
for six months, forfeiture of two-thirds pay and  allowances  for  six
months, and reduction to E-1.

While clemency may be granted under 10 U.S.C.,  Section  1552(f)  (2),
the applicant provides very little justification for her request,  and
clemency is not  warranted  in  this  case.  The  attachments  to  the
applicant’s application provide little support for action by the Board
in light of the seriousness of the  applicant’s  offenses.   Rule  for
Courts-Martial 1003(b) (8) (C) states  that  a  BCD  “is  designed  as
punishment for bad conduct.”  It also indicates that  a  BCD  is  more
than a mere service characterization; it is punishment for the  crimes
the applicant committed while a member of the armed forces.  The  mere
fact the applicant may have encountered hard times does not erase  her
past criminal conduct, does not make her BCD any less appropriate  for
the offenses she committed and certainly does not weigh  in  favor  of
Board action now to undo that part of the  punishment.   Additionally,
clemency in this  case  would  be  unfair  to  those  individuals  who
honorably served their country while in uniform.

The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the JAJM evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant  on  12
February 2010, for review and comment within  30  days.   To  date,  a
response has not been received (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was not timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  her  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find  the  applicant’s  assertions  or  the
documentation  presented  in  support  of  her  appeal  sufficient  to
override the rationale provided by the Air  Force  office  of  primary
responsibility (OPR).  We note the applicant’s  post-service  comments
regarding her current college enrollment to obtain a degree;  however,
we do not find  this  information  sufficient  in  itself  to  warrant
granting  clemency  at  this  time.   Therefore,  we  agree  with  the
recommendations of the Air Force OPR and adopt its  rationale  as  the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed  to  sustain  her
burden of  establishing  she  has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  Accordingly, we  find  no  basis  to  recommend  favorable
action on the applicant’s request to upgrade her discharge.

________________________________________________________________

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-
2009-04352 in Executive  Session  on  15  September  2010,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Nov 09, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 26 Jan 10.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Feb 10.




                                   Panel Chair