RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00905
				INDEX CODE:  110.00
	APPLICANT	COUNSEL:  NONE

	SSN		HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable and reinstatement in the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Based on an article that was published in the Air Force Times in 1986, urine specimens that were tested during the 1981-1982 timeframe at Air Force and Army labs were judged to be scientifically and legally unacceptable.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant began his active duty service in 1969.  He received referral Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) in March 1975 and December 1981.  He received a letter of reprimand for dereliction of duty in November 1982.  

On 21 November 1983, the applicant gave a urine sample which tested positive for the presence of marijuana.  He also received an Article 15 in December 1983 for unlawful use of marijuana.  The applicant chose not to submit a written response to the allegation but gave an oral statement to his commander.  The commander found him guilty of illegal use of marijuana and punished him pursuant to Article 15 by a reduction in grade to E-4.  The applicant did not appeal his commander's decision.

On 19 January 1984, applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend him for an Under Honorable Conditions (General) Discharge for illegal use of marijuana.  The applicant, after consulting with counsel, requested a retest of his urine sample.  His urine sample was retested and again tested positive for the presence of marijuana.  The applicant offered a written 
unconditional waiver on 13 March 1984, requesting an honorable discharge.  The commander approved a general discharge without probation or rehabilitation for the applicant.  His discharge was effective on 16 March 1984.  He served a total of 15 years, 6 months and 10 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Separation Procedures Section, Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the application and states the applicant did not deny using drugs, nor did he submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.  DPPRS recommends denying the requested relief.

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

The Senior Attorney-Advisor, HQ AFPC/JA, also reviewed the application and states it is unfortunately true that Air Force Drug Testing Labs have at times experienced lapses in following the proper processes while testing urine samples.  However, these lapses do not invalidate all test results conducted during those times.  The Air Force has consistently monitored its lab processes and has set aside adverse action whenever such an action was warranted.  The article the applicant submitted attest to the rigorous oversight procedures.  The article even indicated the blue ribbon panel reviewed the specimens during the alleged improprieties, and that "[t]he Air Force has set aside actions" in certain cases.  There is no evidence in the applicant's record to indicate that his urine sample was one of the unacceptable samples that was referenced in the newspaper article.  The applicant's urine sample prior to his discharge was tested twice and both times tested positive for marijuana.  According to the Staff Judge Advocate's legal review of the applicant's discharge it is noted that the applicant claimed his urine sample testing positive for marijuana was a result of a medical condition which caused the test to record a false positive result.  However, there is no evidence that the applicant had a medical condition at the time he submitted his urine sample that would have caused a false positive test.  There is no indication in the case file that the applicant ever straightforwardly denied using marijuana in November 1983, prior to his urinalysis.  He provides no evidence to support that his urine specimen was one of the unacceptable urinalysis results in 1983.  Based on the evidence submitted that office recommends denying the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge and reinstatement in the Air Force  (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 June 2001, 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 probable error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded to recommend upgrading the discharge.  The applicant did not submit any evidence to indicate that his urine sample was included in the batch that was found to be unacceptable.  As stated, in the AFPC/JA advisory, the testing labs have experienced lapses in proper processing of the testing of urine samples; however, these lapses will not invalidate all tests results conducted at that time.  The Air Force has instilled measures to accommodate those whose tests were found to be compromised.  The applicant's urine sample was tested twice and both times the sample tested positive for the presence of marijuana.   In addition, the applicant has never denied using marijuana prior to his discharge.  We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their 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 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 probable 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 this application in Executive Session on 25 July 2001 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 March 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Available Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 April 2001.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 21 May 2001
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 June 2001

                                   
                                   Panel Chair