RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02795
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation and the separation authority be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged for drug abuse.  He received an honorable discharge and states that he never used drugs during his military career.  His wife during the contested time period put marijuana in his food.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the time period in question the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 May 1982 in the grade of sergeant for a period of six (6) years.

On 19 May 1986, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to initiate discharge action against him for Misconduct, Minor Disciplinary Infractions and Commission of a Serious Offense, Drug Abuse.  Specific reasons follows:

	On 25 March 1985, the commander received notification that the member was delinquent in paying his NCO Club account.

	On 25 March 1985, the member received an ATC Form 18 for reporting late to duty.

	On 25 September 1985, the member received an Administrative Reprimand for consuming an alcoholic beverage while on duty.

	On 22 January 1986, the member received an Administrative Reprimand for not following a prescribed checklist.

	On 12 March 1986, the member submitted to a commander directed urinalysis, which tested positive for marijuana.  For this offense he received an Administrative Reprimand, and was placed on the Control Roster.  

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that considering the member’s character of service he did not consider the urinalysis submitted on 12 March 1986, but based his recommendation that he receive a general discharge on his overall military record during his current enlistment.  Before recommending this discharge the member was counseled on several occasions by his commander, first sergeant, and supervisors, with no apparent effect on his conduct.  The commander further indicated that he did not recommend probation and rehabilitation according to Chapter 7.  Due to the member’s past and continuing inability to conform to established military standards, probation and rehabilitation was not considered appropriate.

On 23 June 1986, the commander changed his recommendation to an honorable discharge.

On 23 June 1986, the applicant submitted a conditional waiver of his administrative discharge board contingent upon receiving an honorable discharge.

On 19 August 1986, the discharge authority disapproved the applicant’s request for a conditional waiver.

On 19 September 1986, the Administrative Discharge Board recommended the applicant be discharged for minor disciplinary infractions and commission of a serious offense, to wit: drug abuse, pursuant to the provisions of AFR 39-10, Chapter 5, Section H, paragraphs 5-46 and 5-49c, with an Honorable Discharge.  They further recommended that the applicant not be offered rehabilitation opportunities with conditional suspension of the discharge.  Probation and rehabilitation were not recommended because the evidence and testimony presented led the Board to conclude that drug abuse did occur and said drug abuse was not compatible with continued military service.

On 24 October 1986, the discharge authority concurred with the Board’s findings and ordered an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged on 27 October 1986, in the grade of staff sergeant with an honorable discharge, under the provisions AFR 39-10 (Misconduct-Drug Abuse).  He served 7 years, 6 months and 12 days total active duty service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an Investigative Report, which is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They indicated that based upon the documentation in the file, they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 4 October 2002, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

On 7 January 2003, the Board staff requested post-service documentation from the applicant and provided him a copy of the FBI report for review and response within thirty (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 probable error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice.  The discharge apparently complied with the governing regulation in effect at that time; therefore, we believe his separation was appropriate.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, the Board is of the opinion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-2795 in Executive Session on 20 March 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 July 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 September 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 October 2002.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 January 2003, w/atchs.