RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC 2002-03465

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Since the incident leading to his discharge was never investigated, his discharge was wrong.

The applicant states that while in the service, he tested positive for marijuana use and was given a second chance.  He was assigned as a hydraulics mechanic for C-130 aircraft.  On one occasion, he was driving onto the flight line to check with an aircraft crew to see how long they were going to be, so that he could complete his job.  On the way, he stopped by Quality Control and was given a citation for being too close to an aircraft that was on max power run.  At the time, he did not think that he was beyond the distance guidelines and the airman in the vehicle states that they thought it was wrong that the citation was issued.  He accepted the citation without incident; however, the following day, he was informed that he was being discharged.  Since the discharge was never investigated, his discharge was wrong.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 13 August 1981, for a period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3).

On 22 December 1983, he tested positive for marijuana use during random urinalysis testing.

On 27 January 1984, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for violating Article 134 (i.e., drug abuse).  Specifically, for wrongfully using marijuana at Dyess AFB, Texas, on or about 22 December 1983.  After consulting legal counsel, the applicant waived his right to a trial by court-martial and accepted the nonjudicial punishment.  After considering the applicant’s oral and written submissions, on 2 February 1984, the commander determined that he did commit the alleged offense and imposed the nonjudicial punishment.  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of airman and forfeiture of $150.00 per month for two months.  However, the reduction to the grade of airman was suspended until 6 July 1984.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 20 June 1984, the commander notified the applicant that he was recommending his discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-10 for a pattern of misconduct.  Specifically, for speeding on base, for which he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC); for presenting a $60.00 check to the Four Seasons store with insufficient funds on deposit to honor the check; for wrongfully using marijuana, for which he received an Article 15; and presenting an $8.00 check to the Class VI store with insufficient funds on deposit to honor the check, for which he received a Letter of Admonishment (LOA).  He acknowledged receipt, consulted with military counsel and submitted statements in his own behalf.

The discharge authority approved the discharge on 17 July 1984.

He was discharged on 18 July 1984, under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Pattern Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil Authorities), with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He completed 2 years, 11 months, and 6 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

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 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.  Furthermore, he has provided no facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge he received.

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 22 November 2002 for review and response within 30 days.  However, as of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 available evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice.  In this respect, the discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulation in effect at the time of his separation.  The applicant has provided no evidence to indicate that his separation was inappropriate.  Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to disturb the existing record.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2002-03465 in Executive Session on 10 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Nov 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 Nov 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Nov 02.