RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02095
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable.  

__________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Allegations were made against him by drug conspirators so they could alleviate or lighten their sentence.  There was no rhyme or reason for the allegations.  He willfully separated from the Air Force because it didn’t make sense to go through court proceedings to prove his innocence.  He was a model airman, never in trouble and it seemed that the Air Force didn’t take this into account.  The Air Force took the word of these individuals as fact.  He was humiliated and it was best for him to terminate his relationship with the Air Force.

He was a young man and hasn’t forgotten this time in his life.  It is important to him that he set the record straight and to reestablish his honor.  This incident has been hanging over him ever since and he would appreciate a correction if at all possible.

The applicant provides no supporting documents.  The applicant’s application is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 11 September 1978, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.  During this period of service, he was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3).  

On 15 June 1981, the applicant requested discharge under AFM 39-12, paragraph 2-78 for the good of the service.  The reason for the request, was that the member was facing a court-martial based on charges of wrongful use of marijuana on divers occasions between 1 May and 30 June 1980; wrongful possession of marijuana on divers occasions from 1 May to 30 June 1980 and 1 September to 30 November 1980; wrongful solicitation of other airmen to wrongfully transfer marijuana during the month of September 1980; and wrongful possession of LSD between 25 November and 5 December 1980.  Subsequently, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service) and received an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He had served 2 years, 5 months and 2 days of total active military service.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS states that the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in his discharge process.  Based upon the documentation in his records, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation (see Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 August 2002 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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 careful consideration of the applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we see no evidence that would warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the actions taken to effect his discharge were improper, that his request for separation was involuntarily submitted, or that the information in his discharge case file is erroneous.  Furthermore, the applicant has provided no evidence to warrant consideration of a request for clemency.  Should the applicant provide expansive evidence of his post-service activities that would indicate to us he is now a successful and productive member of his community, we would be willing to reconsider his petition.  In the absence of such evidence, his request 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 this application AFBCMR Docket Number 01-03486 in Executive Session on 2 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 July 2002.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 July 2002.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 August 2002.

								Vice Chair