RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01762
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his discharge his superiors never offered him alcohol/drug addiction counseling nor did they ask if he had a problem.  His addiction led him to make wrong choices that he wouldn’t have normally made if he were clean and sober.  Since his discharge, he attends substance abuse meetings regularly and is in contact with his sponsor daily.  He is currently an Administrative Assistant for the Director of Clinical Trial Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University.  He states that he served the Air Force honorably for two terms.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 May 1986 in the grade of airman basic.

The applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following:  On or about 22 March 1995, the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  After consulting counsel the applicant waived his right to court-martial and accepted nonjudicial proceedings under Article 15 UCMJ.  He requested to make a personal appearance and submitted statements in his own behalf.  On 7 April 1995 the commander approved the Article 15 and the following punishment was imposed:  reduction to the grade of senior airman and 14 days extra duty.  Reduction to the grade of senior airman was suspended until October 1995, after which time it would have been remitted without further action, unless sooner vacated.  The applicant did not appeal and the Article 15 was filed in his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 11 April 1995, the applicant’s commander and supervisor signed an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, denying him reenlistment because he violated Article 86, UCMJ, on 22 March 1995.  They indicated that the applicant was not considered suitable for reenlistment at that time.  They suggested he be reevaluated and reconsidered for reenlistment when the punishment was remitted.

On 23 August 1995, the applicant’s commander and supervisor signed an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, granting him reenlistment.  They indicated that they strongly recommended applicant for reenlistment.  He had proven that he was a professional.  He was a valuable asset to the organization and the Air Force. 

On 11 October 1995, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following:  On or about 6 October 1995, the applicant without authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  After consulting counsel, the applicant waived his right to court-martial and accepted nonjudicial proceedings under Article 15 UCMJ.  He requested to make a personal appearance and submitted statements in his own behalf.  On 17 October 1995 the commander approved the Article 15 and the following punishment was imposed:  reduction to the grade of senior airman, with a new date of rank (DOR) of 23 October 1995.  The applicant did not appeal and the Article 15 was filed in his UIF.

On 25 October 1995, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following:  On or about 16 October 1995, the applicant without authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  After consulting counsel the applicant waived his right to court-martial and accepted nonjudicial proceedings under Article 15 UCMJ.  He requested to make a personal appearance and submitted statements in his own behalf.  On 31 October 1995, the commander approved the Article 15 and the following punishment was imposed:  reduction to the grade of airman first class, with a new date of rank (DOR) of 2 November 1995.  The applicant did not appeal and the Article 15 was filed in his UIF.

On 9 February 1996, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  The LOR was filed in his UIF.

On 14 February 1996, the applicant received an LOR for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  The LOR was filed in his UIF.

On 18 March 1996, the applicant was tried and found guilty by a General Court-Martial for the following reasons:

	Specification I:  The applicant did, within the continental Unites States on divers occasions, between on or about 6 October 1995 and on or about 17 October 1995, wrongfully use cocaine.

	Specification II:  Who knew of his duties at or near Valdosta, Georgia on divers occasions on or about 11 December 1995, was derelict in the performance of those duties in that he willfully failed to use his American Express Government Travel Card for official government travel expenses only, as it was his duty to do.

	Pleas & Findings of both Specifications:  Guilty.  The following punishment was imposed:  sentenced to a bad conduct discharge; confinement for six months; reduction to the grade of airman basic and forfeiture of $219.00 pay per month.  

	On 18 March 1996, the sentence was adjudged.

On 28 January 1997, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence.

On 3 June 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied the applicant’s petition for review.

On 8 July 1997, a final court-martial order was issued directing that the bad conduct discharge be executed.

Applicant was discharged on 28 July 1997, in the grade of airman basic with a bad conduct discharge (BCD), under the provisions of General Court-Martial Order #43, Conviction by Court-Martial - Other Than Desertion.  He served 11 years, 2 months, and 17 days total active duty service.

EPR profile since 1989 reflects the following:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

		 1 Dec 89		5
		 1 Dec 90		5
		15 Sep 91		5
		15 Sep 92		5
		15 Sep 93		5
		11 Apr 94		5
		11 Apr 95               		4

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant is entitled to benefits based on his previous honorable discharges.  A bad conduct discharge accurately and aptly characterized his last term of service.  Accordingly, there is no merit to the applicant’s claim.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 15 August 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.  After thoroughly reviewing the available evidence of record, we find no evidence to show that the applicant’s discharge as a result of his conviction by court-martial was erroneous or unjust.  The applicant contends that at the time of his discharge his superiors never offered him alcohol/drug addiction counseling nor did they ask if he had a problem.  His addiction led him to make wrong choices that he wouldn’t have normally made if he were clean and sober.  However, he submits no persuasive evidence to support these contentions.  While the applicant believes his bad conduct discharge should be upgraded, we note that the convening authority approved the bad conduct discharge and determined that the bad conduct discharge was an appropriate consequence that accurately described the applicant’s military service and his crimes.  In view of the foregoing we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Military Justice Division and 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.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 an 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01762 in Executive Session on 23 September 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 June 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 6 August 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 August 2003.

					   Panel Chair