RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01522

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He thinks enough time has passed for an upgrade of his discharge.  He understands that his conduct was unbecoming of an airman in the armed forces of the United States.  He has been denied jobs because of his discharge.    

In support of his request, he submits a copy of DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal From the Armed Forces of the United States.
 
Applicant’s complete application, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 30 December 1980.  The applicant was involuntarily discharged under the provision of AFR 39-10 (misconduct – drug abuse) with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) in the grade of airman.  He served 3 years, 2 months and 21 days of total active military service.

On 5 January 1984, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending the applicant for a discharge for misconduct, specifically drug abuse.  The basis for the action was that the applicant received an Article 15, dated 14 December 1983, for wrongful use of cocaine.  On 25 January 1984, applicant waived his right to an administrative discharge board contingent upon receiving a general discharge.  He did not submit statements on his behalf.  A general discharge was recommended because the applicant had no prior disciplinary actions. His commander recommended acceptance of the waiver.  The case was received by the base legal services and found to be legally sufficient to support the discharge.  They recommended acceptance of the waiver.  After reviewing the case and recommendations, the Discharge Authority approved the discharge on 16 March 1984 and ordered a general discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge proceedings.  He provided no facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was provided to the applicant on 3 June 2003 for review and comment.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 that failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting an upgrade in his discharge.  The records reflect that the commander initiated administrative actions based on information he determined to be reliable and that administrative actions were properly accomplished.  The applicant was afforded all rights granted by statute and regulation.  We are not persuaded by the evidence presented that the commander abused his discretionary authority when he initiated the discharge action, and since we find no abuse of that authority, we find no reason to overturn the commander’s decision.  We agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, in absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a 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-2003-01522 in Executive Session on 29 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, 27 May 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jun 03.

	
	Panel Chair