RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01753
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected by changing the description of his misconduct from “a user or abuser of illegal drugs” to “a conspirator in the purchase/sale/use of an illegal drug.”

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “2B” be changed to allow eligibility to reenter the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His record is unjust due to the fact that he never used marijuana.  Although he made a poor judgment decision when he was young, it does not change the fact that he has never failed a urine drug screen and never would.  He took numerous drug screens while on active duty, both before and after the incident.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of the Air Force Discharge Review Board Decision Rationale.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 26 August 1998.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman third class (E-3), with an effective date and date of rank of 10 October 1998.  He was reduced to the grade of airman basic (E-1), with a date of rank (DOR) of 15 February 2002, pursuant to an Article 15.

On 7 February 2000, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment on him under Article 15, UCMJ.  The misconduct applicant had allegedly committed was for conspiring with another airman, on or about 10 January 2000, to commit an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to wit:  wrongful use and possession of a controlled substance, and in order to effect the object of the conspiracy he arranged for the purchase of marijuana by the other airman in violation of Article 81, UCMJ.  Further, the applicant did, on or about 26 January 2000, wrongfully impede an investigation, in the case of the other airman, by making a false official statement to the investigator, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ.  The applicant consulted a lawyer, waived his right to demand trial by court-martial and accepted nonjudicial punishment.  After considering all matters presented to him, the commander found that the applicant did commit one or more of the offenses alleged.  The commander imposed punishment of reduction to the grade of airman basic, with a new date of rank of 15 February 2000, forfeiture of $502.00 pay for two months and 30 days of extra duty.  Applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 1 March 2000, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge for drug abuse.  The reason for this action was due to the applicant’s 10 January 2000 misconduct for wrongfully conspiring to procure and use marijuana, for which he received an Article 15.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification.  He waived his right to consult with counsel and his right to submit statements in his behalf.  The local Staff Judge Advocate recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.  On 13 March 2000, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be issued a general discharge.

The applicant received a general discharge on 14 March 2000 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct).  He had completed a total of 1 year, 6 months and 18 days and was serving in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the time of discharge.  He received an RE Code of 2B, which defined means "Separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions."

Applicant's requests for upgrade of his discharge to honorable, a change of reason for discharge and a change of RE code were denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 12 December 2002.  A copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is appended at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  DPPRS states that, in accordance with the governing directives, illegal use of drugs is described as “the illegal, wrongful or improper use, possession, sale, transfer or introduction onto a military installation of any drug.”  The narrative reason for discharge on the applicant’s DD Form 214 is “Misconduct” which is not word specific; however, it is correct.  Applicant’s Notification Letter sites the correct paragraph (5.54 - Drug Abuse).  DoD provides the Separation Program Designator (SPD) codes and the narrative reasons and DPPRS is prohibited from deviating from those provided.  There is no SPD code or narrative reason that allows for the reason applicant is requesting.  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.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied.  DPPAE stated that the applicant’s RE code of “2B” is correct.  The HQ AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 18 July 2003 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We thoroughly reviewed applicant’s entire record and the circumstances surrounding his discharge and found no evidence that responsible officials applied inappropriate standards in effecting the applicant’s discharge, that pertinent Air Force regulations were violated or that the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  In view of the above and in the absence of evidence that the applicant’s substantial rights were violated, that the information contained in the discharge case file was erroneous, or that his superiors abused their discretionary authority, we are not inclined to favorably consider his request to change the description of his misconduct.

4.  Applicant’s reenlistment eligibility (RE) code accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation.  Therefore, no basis exists to recommend any change to this code.
_________________________________________________________________

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-2003-01753 in Executive Session on 28 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  AFDRB Hearing Record.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 Jun 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 10 Jul 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jul 03.

                                   CHAIR