RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03809
		
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded in order to receive any benefits entitled.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was convicted based on weak circumstantial evidence.  He had a military appointed attorney whom he briefly met and spoke to him about his case for five minutes, maybe 10.  The court transcript shows that the accuser contradicted him self and his attorney never made an attempt to attack the credibility of the main witness (accuser)-Mr.   , whom it had recently been proven, was a cocaine user.  The accuser was being forced to create situations for the AFOSI.  This was the only way Mr.   was allowed to extend or reenlist.

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of DD Form 214.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23 May 1980 and was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class.  He was tried by a special court-martial and separated with a bad conduct discharge (BCD).  He served 3 years, 4 months and 19 days of total active military service.  

On 15 September 1982, he was tried by a special court-martial for wrongfully transferring a quantity of Lysergic Acid Diethyl amide (LSD), in violation of Article 92, UCMJ.  Applicant pleaded not guilty to the charge. 

The applicant was found guilty and sentenced to a BCD, confinement at hard labor for three months, forfeiture of $367.00 per month for one month and reduction to the grade of airman basic.  

On 7 November 1983, the Air Force Court of Military Review reviewed the court-martial and affirmed the findings and sentence.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and stated that there was no error or injustice that occurred in the processing of this discharge action.  Based upon the documentation in file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant has not submitted any evidence or identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge. 

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19 December 2003, for review and comment 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 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.

4.	The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2003-03809 in Executive Session on January 20, 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Nov 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Dec 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.