RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00446
		INDEX CODE:  110.02, 100.06
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be changed to honorable, his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to RE-1, his narrative reason for separation be changed to convenience of the government and his separation program designator (SPD) code be changed to correspond with a honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was immature and made bad decisions while off duty. He was an asset to the Air Force, received effective evaluations and the good conduct medal.  The applicant states that since his separation from the Air Force he has been a productive hard working citizen, and is active in the community.  He maintains that he is the son of a former Vietnam serviceman who was shot down, listed as missing in action and eventually listed as killed in action.  He hopes that his pass mistakes will not mar his feelings for serving in the Air Force.

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force as an airman basic on   30 May 1980 for a term of 4 years.  He was separated from the Air Force on 7 September 1984 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (resignation for the good of the service) UOTHC discharge.

Court-martial charges were referred against the applicant on    27 July 1984.  He was investigated by the Office of Special Investigation (OSI) undercover operation, from 1 April to 24 May 1984.  Investigation revealed applicant had used marijuana on two occasions and had distributed marijuana to two other Air Force members on another occasion.  He drove the OSI agent to purchase marijuana from a civilian supplier after assisting in arrangements for the purchase.  On 31 July 1984, after charges were referred, he requested discharge in lieu of court-martial.  His commander and the base legal office recommended approval of the discharge with a UOTHC characterization.  The staff judge advocate reviewed the case on 16 August 1984, and found it legally sufficient and recommended approval of a UOTHC discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  The discharge authority approved the request for discharge (in lieu of court-martial) and ordered a UOTHC discharge on 22 August 1984.  Applicant was discharged on 7 September 1984.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 11 April 2003, that, on the basis of data furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest record.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors of injustices that occurred in the discharge process.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.   

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.  The Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with a general or (UOTHC) discharge” is correct.  

The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 11 Apr 03, for review and comment within 30 days.  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 an error or injustice.  After careful consideration of the available evidence, we found no indication that the actions taken to effect his discharge were improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or that the actions taken against the applicant were unjust.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2003-00446 in Executive Session on 17 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 2 Mar 03 w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Feb 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 28 Mar 03.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 03.

	
	Panel Chair