RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00213
		
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Since being released from confinement over a year ago, he has been successfully employed at St. Regis Auto Body.  The only fine or trouble he has been in, in this time period is a $20 seat belt fine.  He has managed to save money, stay out of trouble, maintain a good job and help with community projects. He is asking for this upgrade in his discharge because he is always looking toward the future.  He feels the only way he can better himself anymore is to get the best job possible for him. To do this, he feels an upgrade would be a tremendous help.  Looking at his military records, the Board will see that he was a good troop.  He knows he made a mistake, he paid his dues, overcame the consequences, and now he is ready to move on with his life.  If the Board has any questions about his work ethic or dedication, the Board may contact and ask XXXXXX___ of the 62nd Civil Engineer Squadron at McChord AFB, WA.  

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, and a copy of DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 December 1999 and was progressively promoted to the grade of airman.

On 22 May 2001, he was tried by a general court-martial for wrongful use of cocaine more than once, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ.  The applicant pled guilty and chose to be tried by military judge alone.  The military judge found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to receive a bad conduct discharge, be confined for six months, forfeit all pay and allowances, and be reduced to the pay grade of E-1.  On 10 July 2001, the convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged.  The applicant was discharged on 20 November 2002.  He served 2 years, 6 months, and 12 days on active duty.

Because his approved sentence included a bad conduct discharge, the applicant’s conviction was reviewed by the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.  On 20 June 2002, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence.  The applicant did not appeal this decision.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial and states that there is no legal basis for upgrading applicant’s discharge.  The appropriateness of the applicant’s sentence, within the prescribed limits, 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 review process.  The applicant had the assistance of counsel in presenting extenuating and mitigating matters in their most favorable light to the court and the convening authority.  These matters were considered in review of the sentence.  The applicant was thus afforded all rights granted by statue and regulation.  The applicant provides no compelling rationale to mitigate the approved bad conduct discharge given the circumstances of the case.

AFLSA/JAJM complete evaluation is attached 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice that would warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that he has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Evidence has not been provided which would lead us to believe that the action taken to affect his discharge from the Air Force was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations at the time; or, that the characterization of his service was based on factors other than his own misconduct.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no compelling basis upon which 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 a 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-2003-00213 in Executive Session on 29 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Apr 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 20 May 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jun 03.