RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC 2002-03599

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident and had he been offered rehabilitation/counseling, he would have been able to continue his military career.

The applicant states that since the isolated incident, he has never been in any type of legal trouble or been arrested.  He is an honest, hardworking, productive American citizen.  An upgrade of his discharge will help make it possible for him to purchase land, build a home, and enjoy his later years of life.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 31 August 1973, for a period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class.

On 12 March 1974, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully possessing marijuana on 27 February 1974.  The applicant waived his right to a trial by court-martial and did not submit matters in mitigation, extenuation, or defense.  On 13 March 1974, the commander imposed punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of airman basic and forfeiture of $100.00 per month for two months.  However, the reduction in grade was suspended until 5 September 1974.  He did not appeal the punishment.

He completed the Air Force Drug Rehabilitation Program on 16 September 1974.

On 18 December 1974, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for wrongfully possessing marijuana on 24 October 1974.  After consulting with military 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 presentations, the commander imposed punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of airman, with a date of rank of 24 January 1975.  On 5 February 1975, he appealed the punishment on the grounds that it was unduly harsh; however, on 6 February 1975, his appeal was denied.

He was issued a Letter of Reprimand on 30 December 1974, for having been arrested by the Big Spring Police Department on 2 November 1974 for possession of marijuana and a prohibited weapon (.38 caliber revolver).

In a letter, dated 27 February 1975, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend his discharge under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, Section B, Paragraph 2-15c (Drug Abuse), with his service characterized as undesirable.  The commander indicated that his reasons for the proposed action were the applicant’s wrongful possession of marijuana on two occasions and his arrest by the Big Spring Police Department for possession of marijuana and a .38 caliber revolver.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed discharge action, consulted with military legal counsel, and waived his right to an administrative discharge board contingent upon his receipt of either an honorable or general discharge.

On 28 February 1975, the group commander recommended approval of the applicant’s conditional waiver, with a general discharge.

The discharge authority approved the applicant’s general discharge on 14 March 1975.

On 19 March 1975, he was discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (Unfitness - Drug Abuse), with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions), and issued an RE code of 2.  He completed 1 year, 6 months, and 19 days of active service, with no time lost.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the discharge was consistent with the normal 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 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 20 December 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.

4.  It appears that the applicant believes his general discharge will hamper his future efforts to purchase land and build a home.  However, most veterans benefits are given to eligible individuals, such as the applicant, who have received general (under honorable conditions) discharges.
_________________________________________________________________

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-2002-03599 in Executive Session on 10 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Nov 02.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Dec 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Dec 02.