RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03031

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The basis for his court-martial was not altogether direct faults of his own doing.  His wife had been writing checks at the same time he was and he never intended to deceive anyone.  Although he pled guilty to all of the charges, he did so for lesser incarceration after the prosecuting attorney informed his lawyer that he could face up to 58 years of incarceration.  Throughout his Air Force career, he performed his duties well and to the best of his ability, even while incarcerated.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from the Executive Secretary, Air Force Clemency and Parole Board, approving his entry into the Air Force Return to Duty Program, and a statement from the shift leader at the Fort Sill Regional Confinement Facility Dining Hall.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

While serving on active duty in the grade of airman first class, the applicant was tried on 4 August 1999 by a general court-martial consisting of officers.  He was charged with having, with intent to defraud, uttered 107 bad checks during the period 29 March 1998 to 16 February 1999, totaling approximately $2998.00, in violation of Article 123a, UCMJ.  He pled guilty to all charges and was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, six months confinement, total forfeitures, and reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-1).

On 1 October 1999, the convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged.

The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence on 24 November 1999.

On 8 March 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied the applicant’s petition for review of the lower court’s decision.

On 7 April 2000, a final court-martial order was issued directing that the bad conduct discharge be executed and the applicant was discharged on 12 April 2000.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends the application be denied.  AFLSA/JAJM states, in part, that while the applicant contends he was unaware that his wife was using a separate book of higher numbered checks and did not intend to deceive anyone, no mention was made at trial of any deceit by his wife.  The military judge specifically determined that the applicant’s intent was to write bad checks knowing there was no way he would have sufficient funds to cover them.  At trial, the judge asked the applicant, “So none of this was a result of your wife writing checks you didn’t know about causing you to have a negative balance?”  The applicant’s answer was “No, your honor.”

The AFLSA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1 March 2002 for review and response within 30 days.  However, 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief should be granted.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  The office of primary responsibility has adequately addressed applicant’s contentions and we agree with their opinion and we adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Hence, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 01-03031 in Executive Session on 9 April 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Sep 01.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 14 Feb 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Mar 02.