RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01138
		INDEX CODE 110.00
 		COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge states that he was discharged for drug and alcohol abuse; however, he never tested positive for alleged drug use and admits that he was present at the scene of the crime.

The applicant states he was part of a drug arrest that took place in the summer of 1979.  He contended then, as he does now, that if he had a problem, it was with alcohol, not drugs.  His admission of using alcohol to excess was twisted and used against him, although his drinking never affected his job performance as indicated by his firewall 9 performance reports.  Regardless, he is now free of alcohol.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 August 1976 for a period of four years and entered active duty.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman.

The applicant was notified by the commander on 9 March 1979 of the intent to impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for violating Article 111.  Specifically, for operating a vehicle while drunk, on or about 3 March 1979.  After consulting military counsel on 13 March 1979, the applicant accepted the nonjudicial punishment and waived his right to trial by court-martial.  The applicant made an oral presentation to his commander, and on 19 March 1979, the commander determined that he did commit the alleged offense and imposed punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of airman and forfeiture of $35.00.  However, the reduction in grade was suspended until 15 May 1979.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 22 June 1979, the applicant was a passenger in a vehicle which was stopped for a random vehicle entry point check and found to possess 21.3 grams of marijuana.  He was offered and accepted participation in the Strategic Air Command (SAC) Centralized Rehabilitation Program.  He attended the program; however, he did not successfully complete the program and was eliminated.

On 17 September 1979, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend his discharged for drug abuse.  The applicant conditionally waived his right to an Administrative Discharge Board (ADB) conditioned upon his receiving a general discharge.  However, his conditional waiver was rejected by the discharge authority.

On 21 November 1979, a Board of Officers convened to determine whether the applicant should be discharged prior to the expiration of his term of service.  The board found that the applicant had committed acts of drug abuse based on the fact that at, or about 1235 hours, 22 June 1979, he was found in wrongful possession of 21.3 grams of marijuana at K. I. Sawyer AFB, Michigan, is subject to discharge, and is not eligible to promotion and rehabilitation.  Therefore, the board recommended he be discharged with a general discharge.

The discharge authority approved the recommendation of the ADB and on 20 December 1979, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-12 (Misconduct - Drug Abuse - Board).  His service was characterized as general (under honorable conditions).  He completed 3 years, 4 months, and 17 days of active service.

On 8 September 1981, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.

Applicant’s resume of performance follows:

	       PERIOD ENDING                 OVERALL EVALUATION

           3 Feb 78                            9
           5 Oct 78                            9
          16 Sep 79                            6

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  In addition, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant has not submitted any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 May 2002 for review and response within 30 days.  However, 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 error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice.  In this respect, we note that the applicant’s discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force Regulation in effect at the time of his separation and he was afforded all the rights to which entitled.  The applicant has provided no evidence to indicate that his separation was inappropriate. There being insufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  We have considered the applicant's overall quality of service, the events which precipitated the discharge, and available evidence related to his post-service activities and accomplishments.  On balance, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.

_________________________________________________________________

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 ?(DN) in Executive Session on 25 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Apr 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 Apr 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 02.