RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS  
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02605
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was immature at the time of the offense.  She went AWOL with her then boyfriend, yet his punishment was less severe than the punishment she received.

In support of her request, the applicant submits copies of her DD Form 214, an undated letter of introduction, certificates of training, recognition and appreciation.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 5 Jul 95.

On 29 Nov 95, applicant was tried before a special court-martial at Keesler AFB, MS.  She was charged with stealing a vehicle, in violation of Article 121; desertion, in violation of Article 85; missing movement (her flight to Korea), in violation of Article 87; and being absent without leave (AWOL), in violation of Article 86.  The applicant was represented by military defense counsel.  Consistent with her pleas, the applicant was found guilty of stealing the vehicle, missing a flight movement and absenting herself without authority.  The desertion charge was dismissed following her plea of guilty to the aforementioned offenses.  She was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge.  By action, dated 14 Nov 96, the Secretary of the Air Force substituted a general discharge for the bad conduct discharge.

On 17 Dec 96, the applicant received a general discharge under the provisions of General Court Martial Order No. 7 (court martial).  She had completed a total of 1 year, 5 months and 13 days (dates of lost time:  23 Oct - 28 Nov 95) and was serving in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the time of discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends the application be denied.  JAJM stated that on 13 Jun 96, the Air Force Court of Military Review (AFCMR) affirmed the court-martial findings and sentence of a bad conduct discharge.  The AFCMR’s decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.  However, by action dated 14 Nov 96, the Secretary of the Air Force substituted a general discharge for the bad conduct discharge.  JAJM indicated that the applicant did not mention that she did not receive a period of confinement or that her characterization of service was upgraded.  JAJM stated that clemency should only be granted when the applicant has demonstrated that the degree of punishment in relation to the crime was a clear injustice.  The applicant has made no such showing.  Despite having pled guilty to a number of crimes that initially resulted in a punitive discharge from the service, she is now asking for additional relief.  The applicant has already received an upgrade to her characterization of service.  The AFLSA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 6 December 2002 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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; 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 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 (AFLSA/JAJM) and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Although applicant’s age and immaturity may have been contributing factors to her lack of good judgment, they do not, in our opinion, excuse her misconduct or justify further upgrade of the discharge.  In view of the above and absent 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 this application in Executive Session on 30 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02605.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Sep 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 20 Nov 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Dec 02.