RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  02-04026
							INDEX CODE:  110.02
    							COUNSEL:  NONE

    							HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to general.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The punishment was very harsh for his seven and a half years of honorable service.  He received a bad conduct discharge, reduction to E-1 and 6 months confinement.  He was never offered any kind of rehabilitation or help for his problem.  After living with this blemish for ten years, he wants to get on with his life.  He feels that if we can elect a commander-in-chief that has admitted to prior drug use, his upgrade is a minor request.  He recently went to the VA for treatment and was informed that his discharge was still in effect.    

Applicant’s provides no supporting documentation.  His complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 7 February 1979, the applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4).  He continued to reenlist, his last reenlistment occurring on 13 February 1987, in the grade of E-5, for a period of 6 years.  The following is a resume of his EPR ratings, commencing with the report closing 29 December 1989.

	PERIOD ENDING	PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

	  29 Dec 89			4
	  05 Aug 90			5
	  07 Oct 91			5
	  14 Feb 92			5
	  31 Jan 93			4

On 10 March 1993, the applicant provided a urine sample which tested positive for THC at 246 ng/ml.  On 25 May 1993, the applicant was charged with wrongful use of marijuana, on diverse occasions, between on or about 17 February 1993.  On 25 May 1993, after consulting counsel, the applicant requested he be discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial and indicated he understood that if the request was approved, he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions.  On 27 May 1993, the applicant’s commander accepted his request and initiated discharge proceedings against him.  On 28 May 1993, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions.

On 3 June 1993, the applicant was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He had served 14 years, 3 months and 27 days on active duty.

On 28 November 1995, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered and denied his request for a discharge upgrade.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS states that based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify an error or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 24 January 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response.  As of this date, we have not received a 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 evidence of record, we find no impropriety in the characterization of the applicant's discharge.  While it is true that the applicant had compiled an outstanding service record prior to the events that led to his separation, we believe his wrongful use of marijuana coupled with his status as a noncommissioned officer, overshadowed his prior record to a degree which supported the service characterization he received.  The applicant believes his service characterization is harsh.  But, it is our opinion that an under other than honorable conditions discharge was appropriate given the information in his discharge case file and the seriousness of his misconduct.  Other than the assertions of the applicant, he has not provided documentary evidence, which would lead us to believe that his discharge was contrary to the provisions of the governing directive under which it was effected, that his commanders abused their discretionary authority, or that the information contained in the discharge case file was factually incorrect.  In the absence of evidence by the applicant attesting to a successful post-service adjustment in the years after his discharge, we are not inclined to extend clemency at this time.  However, should the applicant provide evidence at some later time showing he has become a productive and successful member of society, and that he has exhibited the qualities associated with good citizenship, he may provide evidence of that fact to the Board with a request for clemency.  

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 16 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 January 2003.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 January 2003.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 January 2003.