RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01842
								INDEX CODE:  110.00
								COUNSEL:  NONE

								HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Narrative Reason for Separation and Separation Program Designator (SPD) code be changed to reflect he was separated due to hardship.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was unjust and based on an isolated incident.  He was not provided with counsel, and several other people were in the immediate vicinity of the illegal marijuana that was confiscated.  He should be compensated for being discharged.  He was caught with marijuana, but others were encouraged to implicate him, and were allowed to remain in the Air Force.

In support of his application the applicant provided a copy of a personal statement, and a copy of DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10 Aug 81, for a period of four years, and was trained as an Avionic Navigation Systems Helper.

On 10 Mar 82, he was notified of his commander's intent to recommend him for discharge for Drug Abuse, under the provisions of AFR 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Personal Abuse of Drugs, Resignation or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service.

The commander stated the following reasons for the proposed discharge:

a.	On 26 Dec 81, he was apprehended by the Keesler AFB Security Police for possession of marijuana.

b.	Article 15, dated 7 Jan 82, wrongful possession some amount of marijuana.

c.	On 12 Jun 82, he was entered into the USAF Drug/Rehabilitation Program.

A legal review was conducted on 8 Apr 82, in which the staff judge advocate recommended that he be separated with an honorable discharge characterization without probation and rehabilitation.  The discharge authority approved the discharge on 11 Apr 82, and on 22 Apr 82, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for Misconduct – Drug Abuse.

He was separated with an honorable discharge characterization, and a reenlistment eligibility code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service”, which bars immediate reenlistment.  He served a total of 8 months, and 13 days active service. 

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 9 March 2006, that on the basis of the data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit D).

The applicant submitted a new DD Form 149, dated 17 Nov 08, and his case was reopened (Exhibit F).

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  Based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  

The complete DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 Jul 06, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  On 15 Aug 06, an email stating the applicant’s desire that his appeal be temporarily withdrawn was forwarded to the Board.

________________________________________________________________

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.  The majority of the Board finds no impropriety in the characterization of applicant's discharge.  It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  The majority of the Board concludes the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing the discharge proceedings were improper and the characterization of the discharge was inappropriate based on the existing circumstances.

4.	The majority of the Board also finds insufficient evidence to warrant upgrade of the discharge on the basis of clemency.  We have considered applicant's overall quality of service and the offenses leading to his separation.  However, based on the evidence of record and in the absence of documentation pertaining to his post-service accomplishments, the majority of the Board cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.  In view of the above, the majority of the Board cannot recommend approval based on the current evidence of record.

5.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

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-2006-01842 in Executive Session on 2 Jun 09, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the request.  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX voted to correct the record and declined to submit minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered under Docket Number BC-2006-01842:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jun 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Response.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 30 Jun 06.
    Exhibit E.  SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jul 06.
    Exhibit F.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Nov 08.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair