RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02603
								INDEX CODE:  110.00

								COUNSEL:  NONE

								HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  21 AUGUST 2006

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge was excessive punishment.

In support of his application he submits a copy of his college transcript for the period 1998-99.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 Nov 88.  He served on continuous active duty and entered his last enlistment on 16 Mar 92, for a period of four years in the grade of senior airman.  His highest grade held was senior airman.  He received four performance reports reflecting overall ratings of (oldest to latest):  3, 4, 4, and 3.

Applicant was tried by a general court-martial on 3 Feb 94, for the following offenses:  (1) He did on or about (a/o) 20 Nov 92, make a false claim against the United States in the amount of approximately 1,152.27; (2) He did o/a 21 Aug 93 to o/a 8 Sep 93, make and utter 14 checks totaling $900.53, to the Base Exchange, and did thereafter dishonorably fail to maintain sufficient funds; (3) He did o/a 1 Jan to o/a 23 Jan 94, dishonorably fail to pay a just debt; and (4) He did o/a 13 Apr 93, with intent to deceive, falsify an official record (stating his wife lived with him when she did not).  Applicant pled guilty and was found guilty of all charges.

He was sentenced to a BCD, confinement for 15 months, and reduction to the grade of airman basic.  

Applicant was discharged with a BCD on 23 Jan 96.  He was credited with 5 years, 11 months, and 8 days of active military service (excludes 1 year, 2 months, and 29 days of lost time due to confinement).  

A copy of a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) report, provided pursuant to the Board’s request, contained no entries subsequent to the applicant’s discharge.  (Exhibit C)

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM reviewed this application and recommended denial.  JAJM states the applicant’s contentions are without merit and constitute neither error nor injustice.  

The applicant contends that his bad conduct discharge was excessive punishment.  However, the overwhelming evidence indicates that there is no basis for upgrading the discharge characterization.

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 discharge.  The applicant was thus afforded all rights granted by statute and regulation.

Further, the applicant’s punitive discharge accurately reflects the character of his service.  His false claims and dishonorable actions regarding money all reflect poorly on the Air Force.  The maximum punishment authorized for the offenses for which the applicant was convicted was a dishonorable discharge, confinement for 11 years, total forfeitures, and reduction to E-1.  The sentence was well within the legal limits and was a fitting punishment for the offenses committed.  Because the sentence appropriately reflected the seriousness of the applicant’s crimes, an upgrade in discharge characterization is inappropriate.

The applicant has identified no error or injustice related to his prosecution or the sentence.  Because the applicant presents insufficient evidence to warrant upgrading the discharge, does not demonstrate an equitable basis for relief, and his application is untimely, we recommend the Board deny the request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 16 Sep 05, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a reply has not been received by this office (Exhibit E). 

___________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  The applicant’s contention that his bad conduct discharge was excessive punishment is duly noted.  However, we do not find his argument, in and of itself, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility.  The evidence of record indicates the applicant was convicted by general court-martial for making false claims and for his dishonorable actions regarding money.  No evidence has been submitted which would lead us to believe that the characterization of his service was improper or unjust.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider his request.

___________________________________________________________________

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‑2004-02603 in Executive Session on 2 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jun 05, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 7 Sep 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Sep 05.