RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01798
		INDEX NUMBERS: A01.03 & 110.00

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has never experimented or taken illegal drugs.  The airman driving the car he was in handed him the drugs and asked him to throw them out.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 10 March 1971, for a period of four years.  On 13 October 1972, he was apprehended by the Washington State Police and was charged with possession of an undetermined amount of mescaline, 7 grams of marijuana, and alcohol.  He was convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance and possession of intoxicants by civil authorities.  He was placed in civil confinement from 13 to 16 October 1972.  During a medical evaluation on 20 October 1972, he admitted to daily use of marijuana for enjoyment, frequent use of mescaline and Lysergic acid diethyl amide (LSD), and experimentation with amphetamines and barbiturates.  He was offered drug rehabilitation on 27 October 1972, but refused to enter the program.  On 6 November 1972, the commander notified him that he was being recommended for discharge due to his misconduct, i.e., civil conviction for possession of a controlled substance and possession of intoxicants, and his refusal to enter drug rehabilitation.  He received a general discharge on 4 December 1972, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, Section a, paragraph 2-4c.  He completed a total of 1 year, 8 months and 25 days of active service, which excludes four days lost time (civil confinement 13  - 16 Oct 72).  He was serving in the grade of airman first class (E-3) at the time of discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, and within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Furthermore, the applicant has not submitted any evidence or identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.

The AFPC/DPPRS 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 1 July 2004 for review and response within 30 days.  However, 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.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief should be granted.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted.  However, the office of primary responsibility has adequately addressed his contentions and we agree with their opinion and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Hence, we find no compelling 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 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-2004-01798 in Executive Session on 17 August 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 May 04.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Jun 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jul 04.