RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02904
		INDEX CODE:  110.10
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be changed to reflect that he was honorably discharged for medical reasons in the grade of sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes the Air Force really did not understand heroin addiction at the time.  His drug addiction started in Vietnam and continued when he returned to the states.  His addiction got worse and then he was charged with drug abuse and escape from a military facility.  He finally got help for his addiction 2 years ago and has been drug and alcohol free for the past two years.  Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 Apr 69 and was progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant.  

In August 1972 he was tried by a general court-martial for a specification of escape from confinement and a specification of wrongful possession of heroin.  He plead not guilty to both charges and was found guilty of both.  Sentence adjudged on 30 Aug 72 was a BCD, confinement at hard labor for 6 months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of airman basic.  The convening authority changed his forfeiture to $144 per month for 6 months, and approved the remaining portions of the sentence.  The applicant was discharged on 6 Jul 73.  He served 6 years, 4 months, and 2 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ALSA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant's request.  JAJM states that the application should be denied as untimely.  If the Board decides to consider the case on its merits, then denial is recommended.  There is no legal basis for upgrading his discharge.  The appropriateness of the sentence is a matter within the discretion of the court-martial and may be mitigated by the convening authority or within the course of the appellate process.  He was assisted by counsel and was afforded all the rights granted by statute and regulation.  He provides no rationale to mitigate the approved punitive discharge.

He was suspected of being under the influence of a controlled substance while on duty.  He was searched and heroin was found on his person.  He was confined and escaped from confinement.  He was tried in the appropriate forum and the sentence was appropriate and was well within the legal limits for the offenses committed.  While clemency is an option, there is no reason for the Board to exercise clemency in this case.  He did not serve his enlistment honorably.  It would be unjust to change his characterization of service to one that hundreds of thousands of airmen, who have served honorably, also carry.  His improved conduct does not erase his criminal behavior during his enlistment, which appropriately ended with a BCD.  He presents insufficient evidence to warrant upgrading his discharge.  The JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17 Jan 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 are not persuaded by his uncorroborated assertions that the actions taken against him were improper, contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations, or that he was denied rights to which he was entitled.  The comments of the Office of the Judge Advocate General are supported by the evidence of record.  We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the applicant's submission, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider 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 Docket Number BC-2002-02904 in Executive Session on 27 Mar 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Sep 02, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 26 Dec 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 03.