RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00479
		INDEX CODE:  110.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her under honorable conditions (general) discharged be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She believes a change is warranted based upon her not knowing what other legal options she had at the time.  She was young and did not understand the allegations toward her association with other people   She was scared and thought her only legal recourse was to go along with the procedure so she could go home.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 17 July 1980, as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 4 January 1983, the applicant was notified of her commander’s intent to recommend her for discharge for drug abuse.  The following reasons for the discharge action were:

	a. On 23 November 1981, the applicant did have in her possession a quantity of marijuana.  For this misconduct, her punishment consisted of LOR and a UIF on 17 December 1981.

	b. The Air Force Office of Special Investigation (AFOSI) identified the applicant as having smoked marijuana on 30 July 1982 in her off-base residence.  As a result of this misconduct, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) was established on 10 December 1982.

The commander advised the applicant of her right to an administrative discharge board; to consult legal counsel and that military legal counsel had been obtained for her; and to submit statements in her own behalf; or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

On 10 January 1983, the applicant submitted a conditional waiver of her rights to an administrative discharge board hearing.  The waiver was contingent upon the applicant receiving no less than an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  She also acknowledged that legal counsel was made available to assist her.

A legal review was conducted in which the staff judge advocate recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge with no probation and rehabilitation.

On 20 January 1983, the discharge authority approved the discharge and directed the applicant be discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged on 26 January 1983, in the grade of airman first class with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, in accordance with AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Drug Abuse).  She served two years, six months and ten days of active service.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of her discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's file, they believe her discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations of that time.  Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  Also, she did not provide any facts to warrant an upgrade of her discharge.  Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 16 April 2004, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.  

On 27 April 2004, the Board staff requested the applicant provide documentation on her activities since leaving military service.  The applicant did not respond (Exhibit F).

On 24 May 2004 and 8 June 2004, the Board staff forwarded the applicant a copy of the investigative report for her review and comment.  The applicant did not respond (Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

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 our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Based on the documentation in the applicant's records, it appears that the processing and the characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  We have considered the applicant’s overall quality of service, however, in view of the misconduct while the applicant was on active duty and the apparent continued acts of misconduct after leaving active duty, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.  Furthermore, when provided the opportunity, the applicant failed to respond to a request to provide documentation regarding her post-service activities.  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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00479 in Executive Session on 14 July 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 28 Mar 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	FBI Report.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Apr 04.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRB, dated 16 Apr 04.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Apr 04.
	Exhibit G.	Letters, AFBCMR, dated 24 May & 8 Jun 04.

				Panel Chair