RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01481
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The current discharge status has restricted his employment opportunities or has disqualified his application altogether.  He is a police officer in the state of Oregon, and employment applications have been denied due to type of discharge.

Applicant did not submit any documents in support of the appeal.  Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard on 7 January 1991.

On 20 August 1993, the commander notified the applicant that he was recommending his discharge from the Air National Guard of the United States and as a Reserve of the Air National Guard according to ANGR 39-10, under the provisions of Chapter 8, Involuntary Discharge for Cause, Section C, Misconduct, paragraph 8-17, Drug Abuse.  Reason for this action is the result of the random urinalysis test administered on 18 April 1993, which was found to be positive for marijuana.

The applicant was discharged from the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve in the grade of senior airman on 2 June 1994.  He received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He served a total of 3 years, 4 months and 26 days of service for pay.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI states that the applicant was involuntarily discharged from the Air National Guard in accordance with ANGR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, dated 15 September 1987, Para 8-17, “Airman will be processed or discharged for misconduct based on drug abuse.”  Based on the provisions of the governing regulation and the information in the applicant’s discharge case file, they recommend denial of his request.  A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 29 August 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response 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 error or injustice.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the applicant’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge was erroneous or unjust.  The available evidence indicates that the applicant’s discharge was based on a positive urinalysis for marijuana, a serious act of misconduct.  He is now seeking an upgrade to his discharge to qualify for employment opportunities.  However, he has provided no evidence showing his discharge was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation at the time it was effected or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  Furthermore, he has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe that he has made a successful post-service adjustment in the years following his separation.  Therefore, we have no basis on which to favorably consider his request. 

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application, BC-2003-01481, in Executive Session on 30 September 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 12 May 03.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 19 Aug 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Aug 03.

					
					Panel Chair