RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00458
                 INDEX CODE:  110

                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her general  under  honorable  conditions  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The discharge characterization  is  improper  based  on  AFI  36-3209,
paragraph A2.2, and Wood v. Secretary of Defense, 196 F.Supp 192 (D.C.
District 1980).

Applicant’s submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant reenlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 6 December 1992 for a
period of six (6) years in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6).

On  3  August  1997,  the  Commander  recommended  that  applicant  be
discharged from the U. S. Air Force Reserve for Misconduct, Commission
of a Serious  Offense,  Drug  Abuse.   The  specific  reason  for  the
proposed discharge was that applicant did, between on or about 14  May
1997 and on  or  about  14 June  1997,  wrongfully  use  a  controlled
substance, to wit:  marijuana.  The  commander  recommended  an  Under
Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC)  discharge.   He  stated  that
before recommending the discharge, he read the  applicant  her  rights
under Article 31, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), to  inquire
about her positive urinalysis test results.  The applicant  would  not
talk to him about the urinalysis test results until after she spoke to
the commander of the medical squadron.  She has not performed  a  Unit
Training Assembly (UTA) since that time.

On 3 August 1997, the 459th Air Wing Staff Judge Advocate (459  AW/JA)
reviewed  the  applicant’s  case  and  found  that  it   was   legally
sufficient.  The SJA concurred  with  the  commander’s  recommendation
that applicant be discharge and that her service be  characterized  as
under other than honorable conditions.

On 22 August 1997, in  response  to  the  notification  of  separation
action, applicant elected to have her case heard by an  administrative
discharge  board.   She  indicated  her  desire  to  make  a  personal
appearance at the board hearing, her desire to be represented  by  her
assigned military legal counsel and, her desire to have  witnesses  at
the board hearing to testify in her behalf.

An Administrative Discharge Board convened at Robins Air  Force  Base,
Georgia on 3 February 1998.  The board found, by  a  preponderance  of
the evidence, that the  applicant  did  wrongfully  use  marijuana  as
evidenced by the positive drug test screen of a urine sample  provided
by her on 14 June 1997.  Having found that  applicant  did  wrongfully
use marijuana, the board further found that applicant did not meet all
seven of the criteria for retention.  The criteria met were:  The drug
abuse is a departure from applicant’s usual  and  customary  behavior;
the drug abuse occurred as a result of drug experimentation; the  drug
abuse  does  not  involve  recurring  incidents,   other   than   drug
experimentation; applicant does not desire to engage in or  intend  to
engage in  drug  abuse  in  the  future;  the  drug  abuse  under  the
circumstances is not likely to recur; the drug abuse did  not  involve
drug  distribution.   The  criterion  not  met  was  that  under   the
particular circumstances of the case, applicant’s  continued  presence
in the Air Force Reserve is consistent with the interest  of  the  Air
Force in maintaining proper discipline, good  order,  leadership,  and
morale.  As a result  of  its  findings,  the  board  determined  that
applicant was subject to separation.  The board recommended  that  the
applicant be separated from the U. S. Air Force Reserve and  issued  a
General Discharge.

On 26 February 1998, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), Air Force Reserve
Command,  reviewed  the  administrative  discharge  board  proceedings
against the applicant and found the  proceedings  legally  sufficient.
The SJA stated that based upon the factual circumstances  involved  in
the case, he recommended the board  findings  and  recommendations  be
approved and that the applicant receive a General discharge.

On 6 March  1998,  the  Vice  Commander,  Air  Force  Reserve  Command
(AFRC/CV) reviewed the board transcript on the  applicant.   The  Vice
Commander  accepted   the   findings   and   recommendation   of   the
administrative  discharge  board.   The  evidence  proves   that   the
applicant provided a urine sample during a random urinalysis which was
later tested and confirmed positive for marijuana.  Due to the  nature
of  this  offense,  the  Vice  Commander  approved   the   applicant’s
separation from the U. S. Air Force Reserve.

By Reserve Order A-087, dated 12 March 1998,  applicant  was  relieved
from assignment and  discharged  from  the  United  States  Air  Force
Reserve effective 26 March 1998 under the provisions  of  AFI  36-3209
(Misconduct, Commission of a Serious Offense, Drug Abuse) in the grade
of master sergeant (E-7).  Her service was  characterized  as  General
(Under  Honorable  Conditions).   Reenlistment   eligibility   status:
Ineligible.  Applicant served approximately 16  years  of  active  and
inactive service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Staff Judge Advocate, Air Force Reserve Command, HQ AFRC/JA states
that the applicant’s request that her general discharge be changed  to
honorable is primarily based upon her interpretation of  AFI  36-3209,
paragraph A2.2 and Wood v. Secretary of Defense, 196F.Supp  192  (D.C.
District  1980).   Her  request  is  totally  without  merit  and  the
characterization  of  her  discharge  proper.   Apparently,  applicant
believes that since she used the drug while in  civilian  status,  the
conduct must be considered to have occurred in the civilian community,
and not had an adverse impact on the effectiveness of the  Air  Force,
including military morale and  efficiency.   However,  paragraph  A2.2
authorizes a general discharge when significant  negative  aspects  of
conduct or performance  of  duty  outweigh  positive  aspects  of  the
member’s military record.  It is without question  that  reporting  to
duty with a controlled substance in  your  system  may  reasonably  be
considered by members of a discharge board as a  significant  negative
aspect of a member’s  performance,  warranting  the  imposition  of  a
general discharge.

The case law cited  by  applicant  is  totally  inapplicable  in  this
instance.  The cases stand for the proposition that a member may  only
be discharged with an under other than honorable discharge for conduct
in the  civilian  community,  if  the  conduct  directly  affects  the
performance of military duties.   First,  both  cases  cited  involved
people in the inactive reserves, that is, they were  not  assigned  to
any unit  or  participating  as  an  active  reservist.   Second,  the
misconduct in both cases had no nexus with the military.   Third,  the
members in both cases were initially discharged with under other  than
honorable conditions discharges.   In  this  instance,  applicant  was
assigned to active duty with a reserve  unit,  reported  for  military
duty with a controlled drug in her system, and was discharged  with  a
general discharge.  Consequently, the case law simply does  not  apply
to her.   The  applicant’s  request  to  have  her  general  discharge
upgraded to honorable should be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
18 May 1998 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that her general under honorable conditions discharge should
be upgraded to honorable.  Her contentions are duly noted; however, we
do not find these uncorroborated assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air
Force Reserve Staff Judge  Advocate.   We  therefore  agree  with  the
recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed  as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed  to  sustain
her burden that she has suffered either  an  error  or  an  injustice.
Therefore, 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 probable  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 2 February 1999, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603.

                  Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
                  Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Feb 98.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/JA, dated 21 Apr 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 May 98.




                                MICHAEL P. HIGGINS
                                Panel Chair