RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01676

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in his seven and a half years of service.

In support of his application, he submits a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal From the Armed Forces of the United States.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 3 July 1981. On 12 July 1984, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (Misconduct-Drug Abuse), with service characterized as under honorable conditions in the grade of senior airman. He served 7 years, 5 months and 29 days of total active military service.

On 9 March 1984, applicant's commander recommended discharge for drug abuse.  The basis for the action was on or about 29 December 1983, applicant provided a urine sample for a commander-directed urinalysis and tested positive for marijuana.  For this he received a letter of reprimand on 13 February 1984.  While this may be used as a basis for discharge, it cannot be considered for characterization of the discharge.  He received an Article 15 on 6 January 1984 for Driving While Intoxicated and was reduced from staff sergeant to sergeant on 1 February 1984.    Applicant consulted with his area defense attorney and on 8 May 1984, applicant submitted a conditional waiver of his administrative discharge board contingent upon receiving no less than a general discharge.  The SJA and his commander reviewed the case and it was found legally sufficient to support the discharge.  The numbered Air Force JA reviewed the case and recommended approval of his conditional waiver.  Probation and rehabilitation (P&R) were not recommended.  The Discharge Authority concurred with the recommendations and ordered a general discharge without P&R on 25 June 1984.

On 23 March 1988, the Air Force Discharge Review Board reviewed and denied the applicant's request for upgrade.

_________________________________________________________________

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 processing.  Additionally, he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.  Accordingly, they recommend his records remain the same and his request be denied.  He has not filed a timely request.  

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 27 June 2003, for review and comment within 30 days.  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, the Board excused the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.  The applicant has not established by his submission that his commander abused his discretionary authority, and since we find no abuse of that authority, there is no compelling reason to overturn the commander’s decision.  We agree with the opinions and recommendations 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 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 Docket Number BC-2003-01676 in Executive Session on 21 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 14 Jun 03, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Jun 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jun 03.

	Panel Chair