RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03090
					INDEX CODE:  110.00

					COUNSEL: None

					HEARING DESIRED: No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When she took the money, she was an alcoholic.  She is a recovering alcoholic.  She needed to support her habit and the deposit bag was readily available.  She further states what she did will follow her to her grave.  She paid all the money back, but the guilt is still there.  Since being discharged, she has married and has a family.  She requests she be given a second chance at life and removal of this stigmatism.  She is a respected citizen in the community and workplace.  The only trouble she has had since her discharge is a speeding ticket.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23 June 1992 for a period of four (4) years as an airman basic.

On 30 August 1996, the applicant was charged with violating Article 121 for on or about 11 February 1996, to on or about 26 May 1996, stealing currency, from the base chapel in the value of $3,311.20.

On 6 November 1996, the applicant was found guilty, in accordance with her pleas, by a general court-martial for stealing $3,311. 20 from the base chapel.  On 6 November 1996, she was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for six months, and reduction in rank from senior airman to airman basic.  The convening authority on 28 January 1997 approved the applicant’s sentence.  On 7 October 1997, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) affirmed the findings and sentence.  On 22 April 1998, the applicant’s petition for review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces was denied.  On 19 May 1998, the final court-martial order was issued directing that the bad conduct discharge be executed.

Applicant’s EPR profile is listed below.

			PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION

			22 Feb 94			5
			22 Feb 95			4
			16 Oct 95			5
			11 Apr 96			5

Applicant was discharged from the Regular Air Force on 11 June 1998, in the grade of airman basic, under the provisions of General Court-Martial Order No. 47, and was furnished a bad conduct discharge.  She had completed 5 years, 11 months and 19 days of total active service with 2 months and 22 days of lost time.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM states an application must be filed within three years after the error or injustice was discovered, or, with due diligence, should have been discovered.  An application may be denied on the basis of being untimely, however, an untimely filing may be excused in the interest of justice.  The applicant’s request comes six years after her discharge.  She has not identified an error or injustice in the processing of her discharge.

Under 10 USC Section 1552(f), which amended the basic correction board legislation, the AFBCMR’s ability to correct records related to courts-martial is limited.  Specifically, Section 1552(f)(1) permits the correction of a record to reflect actions taken by reviewing authorities under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  Additionally, Section 1552(f)(2) permits the correction of records related to action on the sentence of courts-martial for the purpose of clemency.  Apart from these two limited exceptions, the effect of Section 1552(f) is that the AFBCMR is without authority to reverse, set aside, or otherwise expunge a court-martial conviction that occurred on or after 5 May 1950 (the effective date of the UMCJ).

They further state that there is no legal basis for upgrading the applicant’s discharge.  Her sentence was within the prescribed limits and was a matter within the discretion of the court-martial and could have been mitigated by the convening authority or during the course of the appellate review.  The applicant was afforded all rights guaranteed by statute and regulation.  She has provided no compelling basis based on the circumstances of her case that would warrant a change in her discharge.

AFLSA/JAJM further states that while clemency is an option, there is no reason for the Board to exercise clemency in the applicant’s case.  The applicant did not serve honorably during her enlistment.  She knowingly, repeatedly and systematically, stole money from the base chapel.  The military judge, convening authority and the appellate court believed a BCD appropriately characterized the applicant’s military service and crimes.  The applicant has not presented sufficient evidence to warrant upgrading her discharge and therefore they recommend the requested relief be denied.

A complete copy of the 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 19 December 2003, for review and response.  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 of timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence or record, we find no evidence to show that the applicant’s discharge as a result of her conviction by court-martial was erroneous or unjust.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted, however, she has submitted unofficial evidence to support these contentions.  The applicant knowingly and continually stole funds from the base chapel.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-03090 in Executive Session on 24 February 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Sep 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 12 Nov 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.