RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01698
		INDEX CODE:  136.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show he was retired, rather than discharged.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was wrongly accused and not given a chance to prove himself.  He states that he volunteered to take a drug test himself.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 7 March 1969, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic for a period of 4 years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant (E-4), effective and with a date of rank of 1 January 1971.  During this enlistment, he received seven Airman Performance Reports (APRs) for the combined rating period 7 March 1969 through 21 June 1973, in which the overall evaluations were 8,6, 9, 9, 8, 8 and 3.  He received one disciplinary punishment on 10 July 1973 consisting of forfeiture of $50.00 per month for two months on 6 June 1973 for striking another individual on the chin with his fist.  He was honorably discharged on 25 June 1974 under the provisions of AFM 39-10, involuntary discharge of first term airman denied reenlistment.  He had served 5 years, 3 months and 19 days on active duty.

On 25 September 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of sergeant (E-4) for a period of 4 years.  He continued to enlist and serve on active duty, entering his last enlistment on 2 April 1985, when he reenlisted for a period of 4 years.  He was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), effective and with a date of rank of 1 February 1979.  Prior to his promotion to that grade, he received six APRs, in which the overall evaluations were 8, 8, 6, 8, 8, and 7.  Subsequent to his promotion to staff sergeant, for the combined rating period 6 October 1978 through 14 September 1987, he received 11 APRs, in which the overall evaluations were 8, 9, 9, 8, 9, 8, 8, 9, 8, 9, and 8.

On 15 April 1985, the applicant was entered into the Weight Management Program.  His entry weight was 238 pounds and his maximum allowable weight was 212 pounds.  During the course of his participation, he had unsatisfactory weigh-ins in June, July, September, October and December 1985, June, August and October 1986, and January, April and July 1987.

On 4 June 1987, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant he was considering the imposition of nonjudicial punishment on him under Article 15, UCMJ for wrongful use of marijuana on or about 13 April 1987.  (Information maintained in the file indicates the charge was based on a positive urinalysis for marijuana from a specimen provided by the applicant on 13 April 1987.)  The applicant was advised of his rights.  The applicant declined to consult counsel, accepted the nonjudicial proceedings, and indicated he did not desire to make an oral presentation to the commander or to submit written comments for review.  On 5 June 1987, the commander determined the applicant had committed the alleged offense and imposed punishment on the applicant.  He was reduced in grade to sergeant (E-4) and was ordered to forfeit $509.00 per month for two months.  The applicant elected not to appeal the punishment.

On 15 September 1987, applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10 for drug abuse and unsatisfactory performance in the Air Force Weight Management Program.  The applicant was advised of his rights.  The commander indicated that an other than honorable discharge was possible and that a general discharge would be recommended.  Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification on 15 September 1987.  On 23 September 1987, after consulting legal counsel, applicant submitted a conditional waiver of the rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing contingent upon receipt of no less than an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  The group staff judge advocate reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support discharge action.  This officer recommended separation with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  The group commander forwarded the case file for further review with a recommendation that the proposed separation be approved.  In a legal review of the discharge case file dated 4 November 1987, the numbered Air Force staff judge advocate found the file legally sufficient, recommended that the applicant’s conditional waiver be accepted and suggested the separation authority adopt drug abuse as the primary reason for discharge and that he be issued a General Discharge certificate.  The discharge authority accepted the conditional waiver and, on 9 November 1987, directed an under honorable conditions (general) discharge because of drug abuse without P&R.  The case was forwarded for lengthy service probation consideration according to AFR 39-10, Section F, Chapter 6.

In a legal review of the file dated 23 November 1987, the Director of Adverse Actions of the major air command recommended the case be forwarded with a recommendation that the discharge be executed without suspension for probation and rehabilitation.  The major air commander concurred with this recommendation.  On 21 December 1987, the Secretary of the Air Force directed that the approved administrative discharge pursuant to AFR 39-10 be executed.  The Secretary of the Air Force denied lengthy service probation.

The applicant was separated from the Air Force on 11 January 1988 under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen (misconduct – drug abuse), with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  He served 18 years 7 months and 7 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRRP states in order to qualify for retirement, 10 USC 8914 requires that an enlisted member of the Air Force have at least 20 years of total active federal military service (TAFMS).  In this applicant’s case, he did not have at least 20 years of TAFMS when he received an administrative discharge.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 1 July 2004, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response 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, 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 opinions and recommendations 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.  We note, in accordance with 10 USC 8914, the applicant had insufficient total active federal military service (TAFMS) to qualify for retirement.  In addition, we note he was denied lengthy service continuation by the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF).  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 6 January 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, undated.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 Jun 04.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 18 Jun 04.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jul 04.