RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03732
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable and his narrative reason for separation be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He doesn’t feel that his discharge status was an error or unjust, because he did violate the Air Force drug policies.  However, he does not feel he should be punished for life.  Those lapses in judgment terminated his career and are still affecting his ability to gain employment with Federal agencies.

Applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214.  Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from applicant’s military personnel records reveals his Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as 6 January 1975.  The applicant’s last enlistment was in the Regular Air Force on 14 September 1984 in the grade of sergeant for a period of four years.  He received a total of 13 APRs covering the period from 6 January 1976 through 15 November 1984 with overall ratings of 8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,9,8,9,8, and 7.

The applicant received an Article 15 for wrongful use of marijuana between on or about 1 February 1985 and on or about 20 February 1985.  He was reduced to airman first class and fined $200.

On 30 April 1985, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge due to drug abuse.  The applicant was advised of his rights and that a general discharge would be recommended.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and, after consulting military legal counsel, offered a conditional waiver of his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board contingent upon his receipt of no less than a general discharge.  The commander’s recommendation for separation was initiated on 30 April 1985.  In a legal review of the discharge case file dated 3 May 1985, an assistant staff judge advocate assigned to the staff of the group commander found the file legally sufficient and recommended that the case be forwarded to the discharge authority with a recommendation that the applicant not be retained but that he be discharged with a general discharge.  On 9 May 1985, the group commander recommended that the discharge authority approve the recommendation for separation and accept the applicant’s offer of a conditional waiver of his rights.  This commander stated it was his opinion that probation and rehabilitation of the applicant were not considered in the best interest of the service.  On 17 May 1985, an assistant staff judge advocate assigned to the discharge authority found the file legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant be discharged without the offer of probation and rehabilitation.  On 29 May 1985, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge.  The discharge authority determined that probation and rehabilitation were not appropriate.

The applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 3 June 1985 under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen (misconduct - drug abuse) with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  He served 10 years, 4 months and 28 days on active duty.

On 2 January 1987, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered and denied requests by the applicant that his discharge be upgraded to honorable and the reason for his separation be changed.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report, which is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRSP states the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  DPPRSP indicated that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  They therefore recommend denial of his request.  A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 19 December 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days, and on 22 January 2004, a copy of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Report was forwarded for review and response within 14 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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 in Executive Session on 25 March 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2003-03732 was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 31 Oct 03, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	FBI Report.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 26 Nov 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.