RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03938 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 31 JUN 2007 ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable and his narrative reason for separation be changed. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes these categorizations are unjust and he has changed his life around. Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 13 November 1982, for a term of 4 years. On 10 July 1987, the applicant's commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for commission of a serious offense. The basis for the commander’s recommendation was that on 26 June 1987, he received an Article 15 for wrongful use of marijuana as a result of being positively identified for the drug THC (marijuana), as evidenced by results for drug urinalysis (Random) on 10 April 1987. He acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, and after consulting with counsel the applicant submitted statements in his own behalf. The discharge case was reviewed by the base legal office and found to be legally sufficient to support discharge. The discharge authority approved his separation and ordered a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without P&R. Applicant was separated on 17 July 1987, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen for (Misconduct-Drug Abuse) and received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He served 4 years, 7 months and 25 days on active duty. On 4 April 1989, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his discharge be upgraded to honorable. The AFDRB considered all the evidence of record and concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. The board further concluded that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge. 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 E) ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. DPPRS states based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority, the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, nor did he provide any facts warranting a change to his character of service. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 20 Jan 06, for review and comment within 30 days. 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 an error or injustice. After careful consideration of the available evidence, we found no indication that the actions taken to affect his discharge were improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or that the actions taken against the applicant were based on factors other than his own misconduct. The only other basis upon which to upgrade his discharge would be based on clemency. However, applicant has failed to provide documentation pertaining to his post service activities. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider 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 Docket Number BC- 2005-03938 in Executive Session on 19 April 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Dec 05. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Jan 06. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jan 06. Exhibit E. FBI Report, dated 3 Mar 06.