RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02875

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The circumstances surrounding his discharge did not warrant a general discharge. He never received a letter of reprimand nor an Article 15.  He was not a problem airman with the military at all, but made a huge mistake that altered his life.  

In support of the request, he submits a copy of DD Form 214, and a letter of support from his brother.

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 14 January 1998.  On 29 October 2002, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (misconduct), with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) in the grade of airman first class.  He served 4 years, 9 month and 16 days of total active military service.

On 18 October 2002, applicant's commander recommended discharge due to drug abuse.  Between 1 July 2002 and 1 August 2002, the member wrongfully used marijuana and also wrongfully possessed less than one gram of marijuana on 20 August 2002.  He received an Article 15 with a reduction to the grade of airman first class.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRSP recommended denial and stated based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additional, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.  Accordingly, they recommends his records remain the same and his request be denied.  

AFPC/DPPRSP complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 20 November 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 warranting an upgrade in his discharge.  The records reflect that the commander initiated administrative actions based on information he determined to be reliable and the 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 opinion 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-2003-02875 in Executive Session on 20 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 23 Jul 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 20 Nov 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Dec 03.