RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03636
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would like the Board to consider his length of service, his accomplishments and length of time since his discharge.

The applicant did not provide any documents in support of his appeal.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 May 1979.

The applicant was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant on 1 October 1983.

APR profile since 1980 reflects the following:

	PERIOD ENDING           EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

	 13 Mar 80	      9
	 13 Mar 81	      9
	  9 Dec 81	      9
	 15 Aug 82	      8
	 31 May 83	      9

On 1 February 1984, applicant’s NCO status (he was then serving in the grade of sergeant) was vacated (AF Form 418).  He reverted to the rank of senior airman.  It is also noted that applicant received an Article 15, for use of marijuana.

On 11 April 1984, a special court-martial convicted the applicant and three other airmen of conspiring to steal government property and hiding the said property.  Additionally, he was convicted of stealing five battle dress uniform shirts, five pairs of battle dress uniform pants, two sleeping bags, two parkas and five olive drab wool sweaters, valued at about $400.  He was sentenced to a BCD, confinement at hard labor for 4 months and reduction to airman basic.  Confinement was deferred and rescinded on 17 April 1984.  Pending completion of appellate review, the applicant was confined to hard labor for 4 months.  On 6 June 1984, the applicant was placed on excess leave for completion of appellate review.  The discharge was executed in accordance with Special Court-Martial Order #1, 17 January 1985 and he was discharged on 1 February 1985.

The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was separated from the Air Force on 1 February 1985 by Special Court-Martial Order #1, dated 17 January 1985, with a BCD.  He served 5 years, 5 months and 27 days of total active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Therefore, they recommend denial of the applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 14 February 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response 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 probable error or injustice.  The applicant’s discharge had its basis in his trial and conviction by a military court.  We have seen no evidence indicating that the sentence exceeded the maximum punishment authorized by the Uniform Code of Military Justice based on the findings of guilty in his case.  In essence, the applicant is requesting that his discharge be upgraded based on clemency.  While it is true that, for the most part, the applicant served honorably for nearly 5 years before he committed the offenses for which he was tried and convicted, based on the seriousness of the offenses he committed and noting the fact that he received an Article 15 for use of marijuana, we do not find his service, alone, provides a sufficient basis for clemency.  It has been more than eighteen years since his separation; however, the passage of time, in and of itself, does not provide a basis for clemency.  Traditionally, this Board has considered clemency in similar cases where an applicant has established that he or she has been an upstanding member of the community over an extended period of time.  In the absence of any evidence of this nature by the applicant, we are not inclined to favorably consider his request for recharacterization of his discharge based on clemency.

_________________________________________________________________

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 29 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 14 Jan 03.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 Jan 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Feb 03.