RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00861
				INDEX CODE:  110.00
				COUNSEL:  
				HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Under current regulations he would have been offered treatment for drug abuse and allowed to serve out his enlistment and separated with an honorable discharge.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 19 December 1978, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman (Amn) for a period of four years.

On 30 October 1981, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to recommend him for discharge for drug abuse.  The specific reasons for the discharge action were:

	a.	In a statement dated 27 January 1981, Airman First Class (A1C) D., stated the applicant used hashish, marijuana, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and amphetamines.

	b.	In a statement dated 5 February 1981, the applicant stated he used hashish, marijuana, LSD and amphetamines.

	c.	A statement provided by (Airman) Amn V. on 5 February 1981, stated the applicant used LSD.

	d.	A1C H. provided a statement on 6 February 1981, stating the applicant used amphetamines, hashish and LSD.

	e.	A1C E. provided a statement on 6 February 1981, stating the applicant used hashish and LSD.

	f.	A statement provided by A1C G., dated 7 February 1981, stated the applicant used marijuana.

	g.	Senior Airman (SrA) H. provided a statement dated 9 February 1981, stating the applicant used hashish.

	h.	A statement dated 26 May 1981, provided by A1C L. stated the applicant used hashish, marijuana and LSD.

	i.	A statement provided by A1C L., dated 15 June 1981, stated the applicant used and purchased hashish on several occasions.

The commander stated in his recommendation for discharge the applicant had received several briefings during basic training and inprocessing to the wing on Air Force policy concerning drug use.  The commander further recommended the applicant be discharged with service characterized as general without probation and rehabilitation.

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

On 29 July 1981, after consulting with counsel, applicant invoked his right to submit a statement.

A legal review was conducted on 2 December 1981 in which the staff judge advocate recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge with no probation and rehabilitation.

On 8 December 1981, the discharge authority approved the discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 14 December 1981, in the grade of airman first class with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, in accordance with AFM 39-12 (Misconduct - Drug Abuse).  He served 2 years, 11 months and 26 days of total active service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of investigation, Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (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 his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's file, they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations of that time.  The discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  Also, he did not provide any facts to warrant an upgrade of his 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 2 April 2004, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

On 13 May 2004, the Board requested the applicant provide docmentation on his post service activities (Exhibit F).

The applicant states he was a young and foolish youth who got involved with the wrong element.  He is not proud of this.  He was led to believe that if he turned his life around and stayed out of trouble he could have his discharge upgraded.  He has learned his lessons from his youth and has lead a positive and by the book life since then.

Applicant’s complete response with attachment is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 of timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, the Board majority is not persuaded to recommend upgrading the discharge.  Based on the documentation in the applicant's records, it appears the processing of the discharge and the characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  The Board majority has considered the applicant’s overall quality of service and in view of the numerous instances of misconduct while the applicant was on active duty, on balance, we do not believe clemency is warranted.  Although the applicant has presented documented evidence of post-service activities and accomplishments, the Board majority believes that based on the severity of the drug abuse and the 

drug of choice (LSD), they 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-2004-00861 in Executive Session on 5 May 2004 and 21 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By majority vote, the Board recommended to deny the application. Mr. XXXXXX voted to grant correcting the records and has submitted a Minority Report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 3 Mar 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	FBI Report.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 Mar 04.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, AFBCMR, date 13 May 04.
	Exhibit G.	Applicant’s Response w/atchs, undated.
	Exhibit H.	Minority Report.

AFBCMR BC-2004-00861

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD 
			FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of 

	I have carefully considered all aspects of this case and do not agree with the majority of the panel that the applicant’s request should be denied.

	After reviewing the available documentation, I believe applicant’s discharge should be upgraded, on the basis of clemency based on extraordinary post service accomplishments.

	Applicant has had to live with the adverse effect of his under honorable conditions discharge for over 22 years, and while the discharge may have been appropriate, I believe it would be an injustice for him to continue to suffer from its effects.  From the evidence before me, it appears that applicant performed his duties well while in the service, with the exception of the behavior which led to his discharge and has been a law-abiding citizen since his separation.

	Certainly, I do not condone the behavior that led to his under honorable conditions discharge; however, it serves no useful purpose to the Air Force or to society in general to continue the nature of his discharge at this late date.  Therefore, it is my decision that his discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

							

AFBCMR BC-2004-00861

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to ,                  be corrected to show that on 14 December 1981, he was honorably discharged and furnished an Honorable Discharge certificate.

							

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
			CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:	AFBCMR Case,       , AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00861

	The applicant is requesting his under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.  The majority of the Board recommends denial of his request.  I strongly disagree.

My understanding of our legal system, as I am not a lawyer, is that when one is convicted of a crime, one pays their debt to society and when freed, one can then begin their life again, in most cases, without stigma.  I believe that our clemency process reflects the same principles.  An individual who makes mistakes in the Air Force, is adjudicated and punished in a wide variety of ways including discharge under less than fully honorable conditions.  The downgraded discharge can be permanent.  However, to readdress such permanency, this Board has the opportunity to look at an individual’s post-service record, evaluate whether they have lived an honorable life and whether they are deserving of clemency.  I have found over the years that my standard is stricter then some.  I tend to look at whether an individual not only led a good life since discharge but that he or she has “gone above and beyond” to compensate for their earlier mistakes.

With regard to the applicant’s case, there is no dispute he used drugs while off duty.  Despite this lapse of judgment, the Evaluation Officer found the applicant’s “performance during his tour of duty at RAF Greenham Common was always satisfactory.  This was substantiated by his APRs and interviews with his supervisors.”  Elements of his performance were noteworthy and he received commendations from his supervisors.  Nevertheless, his off duty drug use appropriately ended his career with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

However, rather than continuing down the road he had paved in the Air Force, the applicant chose one of the most hazardous and stressful careers possible, that of a Professional Firefighter and Emergency Medical Technician for the City of Syracuse, New York.  He has served his community honorably for 19 years.  As evidence of his service, he has provided documentation to include 19 certifications and/or certificates of attendance.  Having much experience with courses in this career field, I know they are both cerebral and extremely physical and require dedication to be accomplished successfully.  Additionally, he has provided 2 character references from his pastor and 12 letters and certificates of appreciation or commendation.  Most notably, he has provided five (5) lifesaving awards.  He has no arrest record according to the FBI report.  I do not believe he could serve in his chosen vocation if he had a record.

The applicant has had to live with the adverse effect of his discharge for more than 22 years, and while the discharge may have been appropriate, I believe it would be an injustice for him to continue to suffer from its effects.  He has saved lives and is an honorable man.  He now asks to be forgiven for his mistakes and that his discharge be upgraded to honorable.  Truly, this man crosses my threshold for clemency.