RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01606
            INDEX CODE:  100, 110

            COUNSEL:  American Legion

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    In an application, dated 1 Jun 98, the applicant requested  that
his general (under honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable and the reason for separation be changed  from  Misconduct -
Drug Abuse to Misconduct.

2.    In an application, dated 11 Sep 98, the applicant  requested  to
amend his original application and requested that his  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable;  the  reason
for separation be changed from Misconduct - Drug Abuse to  Misconduct;
his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2B (Involuntarily  separated
under AFR  39-10,  with  a  general  or  under  other  than  honorable
conditions (UOTHC) discharge) be changed; and, that he  be  reinstated
into the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In his 1 Jun 98 application, applicant contends that  he  swore  on  a
statement admitting  to  the  offense  for  the  discharge  but  never
intended to end his Air Force career this way.  He states that  he  is
not a drug abuser nor did he have a  drug  addiction.   There  was  no
previous history of drug usage prior to or during  his  enlistment  of
active duty service.  During his enlistment, he had no prior record of
misconduct.  He regrets that he did this offense and has improved  his
life and made a success with a wife and two sons.   He  believes  that
his  success  as   a   father,   husband,   businessman,   contractor,
professional person, and Department of Defense  (DOD)  employee  shows
that he has made a change in his life.  He feels that at the  time  of
his discharge, he was not a mature adult as what he is now.



In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a two-page statement,
a copy of his DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge  or
Dismissal From the Armed Forces of the United  States),  a  letter  of
reference  from  his  bank,   a   contracting   license,   and   other
documentation relating to his appeal.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

In his 11 Sep 98 application, applicant again reiterates  his  beliefs
regarding his discharge and states that he met a woman that he  became
intimately involved with which led to the incident.  At  the  time  he
committed the offense, he was unaware of what he was doing.   He  felt
emotional, confused, and disoriented.   He  knows  that  it  was  peer
pressure, inexperience, immaturity, and curiosity.  The  investigation
for the offense of use of  illegal  substance  was  a  result  of  him
confiding to an airman first class (a fellow security  policeman  from
his squadron).  On 4 Apr 89, the  Mental  Health  evaluation  revealed
there were no previous drug abuse use  and  the  report  stated  “peer
pressure” on the form.  This was the one time incident.  Prior to  the
incident, he never had any misconduct or  unfavorable  information  on
file.  He feels that he was condemned as a drug abuser  based  on  the
reason for discharge on his DD Form 214  (Certificate  of  Release  or
Discharge From Active Duty) and does not wish to be  deprived  of  the
opportunity to serve his country respectively.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  three-page
statement and his current Army and Air Force Exchange Service  (AAFES)
evaluation.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A1.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on  15 Dec  87
for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic.

Applicant received one Airman Performance Report (APR) for the  period
15 Dec 87 through 14 Dec 88 with an overall rating of “9.”

On 4 Apr 89, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand  (LOR)  for,
by his own admission in a sworn statement to  the  Office  of  Special
Investigations (OSI), admitting to smoking  marijuana/hashish  on  two
occasions between 1 Feb 89 and 17 Mar 89 in violation of  the  Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  During the period of the  abuse,  he
was performing duties as a security policeman.

On 4 Apr 89, an Unfavorable Information  File  (UIF)  was  established
based on the above reprimand.

On 5 Apr 89, the applicant was notified by the commander that  he  was
recommending the applicant be discharged from the Air Force under  the
provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-50.1, for drug abuse with service
characterized  as  general.   The  reasons  for   this   action   were
applicant’s LOR and establishment of an UIF on 4 Apr 89 for use of  an
illegal drug (marijuana/hashish) on more than one occasion.

On 5 Apr 89, the applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  Letter  of
Notification and indicated by signing the letter  that  he  understood
the actions against him.

On 10 Apr 89, the applicant indicated by his signature  that  military
legal counsel was made available to him; that  he  consulted  counsel;
and, that he waived the right to submit  personal  statements  in  his
behalf.

On 13 Apr 89, the Assistant  Staff  Judge  Advocate  (SJA)  found  the
applicant’s case legally sufficient to support  discharge  action  for
drug abuse pursuant to AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-50.1.

On 14 Apr 89, the commander approved  the  applicant’s  discharge  and
considered  probation  and  rehabilitation  and  did   not   deem   it
appropriate.

On 24 Apr 89, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR
39-10 (Misconduct-Drug Abuse) in the grade of airman  with  a  general
(under honorable conditions) discharge and an RE code of 2B.   He  was
credited with 1 year, 4 months, and 10 days of active service.

On 6 Jul 90, the Air Force Discharge Review Board  (AFDRB)  considered
and denied applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report indicating
they  were  unable  to  locate  an  arrest  record  on  the  basis  of
information furnished (see Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFDRB denied applicant's  request  to  upgrade  his  discharge  to
honorable on 6 Jul 90.

A complete copy of the AFDRB Brief is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The decision of the AFDRB was forwarded to the  applicant  for  review
and response on 2 Jul 98.  On 24 Aug, 31 Aug, 5 Sep, and 8 Sep 98, the
applicant provided three statements of reference, a  letter  from  his
employer, a letter from his parents, and a letter from  his  community
church in Arizona (see Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

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 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.   Considered  alone,  the  Board  concludes   the
discharge  proceedings  were  proper  and  characterization   of   the
discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.

4.    Consideration of this Board, however,  is  not  limited  to  the
events which precipitated the  discharge.   We  have  a  Congressional
mandate  which  permits  consideration   of   other   factors;   e.g.,
applicant's background, the overall  quality  of  service,  and  post-
service activities and accomplishments.   Further,  we  may  base  our
decision on matters of equity  and  clemency  rather  than  simply  on
whether rules and regulations which existed at the time were followed.
 This is a much broader consideration than officials involved  in  the
discharge were permitted, and our decision in no  way  discredits  the
validity of theirs.

5.    Under our broader mandate and after careful consideration of all
the  facts  and  circumstances  of  applicant's  case,  the  Board  is
persuaded that applicant has been a productive member of society.  The
Board  recognizes  the  adverse  impact  of  the  discharge  applicant
received; and, while it may have been appropriate  at  the  time,  the
Board finds that corrective action  is  appropriate  as  a  matter  of
equity and on the basis of clemency.  Therefore, the Board  recommends
his discharge be upgraded to honorable and a  majority  of  the  Board
recommends his RE code be changed  to  1J.   Our  recommendation  will
provide applicant the opportunity to apply  for  reenlistment  in  the
armed services; however, whether or not he is successful  will  depend
on the needs of the service.  This recommendation in no way guarantees
his reenlistment.

6.    We considered applicant’s request for reinstatement into the Air
Force.   However,  after  noting  that  he  did   admit   to   smoking
marijuana/hashish on two occasions and noting that he  was  performing
duties as a security policeman during the period of abuse, we find  no
basis  to  recommend  favorable  action  on  applicant’s  request  for
reinstatement.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 24 Apr 89, he  was
honorably discharged under the provisions of  AFR  39-10,  Secretarial
Authority, furnished an Honorable Discharge certificate, and issued an
RE code of “lJ.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 25 March 1999, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. Cathlynn Sparks, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Mike Novel, Member
              Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
              Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

All members voted to change applicant’s discharge to honorable and the
reason for separation.  Ms. Sparks and Mr. Shaw voted to change the RE
code to “1J.”  Mr. Novel voted to change to RE code to “3K”  but  does
not wish to submit  a  minority  report.   The  following  documentary
evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.   DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit A1.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Sep 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.   Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.   FBI Report, dated 15 Oct 98.
     Exhibit D.   AFDRB Brief, dated 6 Jul 90.
     Exhibit E.   Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Jul 98.
     Exhibit F.   Letters fr applicant, dated 24 Aug, 31 Aug,
                    and 5 Sep 98, w/atchs.




                                   CATHLYNN SPARKS
                                   Panel Chair