RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00619
            INDEX NUMBER:  128.10

      XXXXXXXXXXXX     COUNSEL:  Quinn C. Chandler

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His record be corrected to show that insufficient evidence  existed
to warrant his disenrollment from the Air Force Health  Professions
Program (AFHPP).

His  record  be  corrected  to  show  that  he  complied  with  his
obligations under his contract with the Government and therefore is
not liable to reimburse it for the money spent on his education.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not and has not ever engaged in illicit drug use.

Two independent drug tests taken shortly after he  learned  of  the
positive result of a Government administered  urinalysis  indicated
that his urine contained no illicit substances.

A copy of his Report of Medical Examination he obtained was altered
to change the results from “NEG” (negative) to “POS” (positive).

There is  no  evidence  that  the  urine  sample  provided  in  the
government test was re-tested or that the proper chain  of  custody
was maintained.

The government as part of its investigation did not compel  him  to
submit to another drug screen examination.

The Report of Medical Examination  constitutes  the  sole  evidence
that  the  government  based  its  final   determination   of   his
ineligibility to enter the AFHPP.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application,  extracted  from
the APPLICANT’s military  records,  are  contained  in  the  letter
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.   Accordingly,
there  is  no  need  to  recite  these  facts  in  this  Record  of
Proceedings.
___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Air University Staff Judge Advocate evaluated this  application
and recommends that the APPLICANT’s request be denied.

The evaluation presented a step by step summary of  the  procedures
used to collect and test urine samples.  On the issue of the change
in test results on the APPLICANT’s Report of  Medical  Examination,
he states that  the  technician  apparently  made  an  error  while
transcribing the results  from  the  Drug  and  Alcohol  Processing
Eligibility  Roster  to  the  Report  of  Medical  Examination  and
originally wrote “Neg” instead  of  “Pos.”   The  technician  lined
through the error with a single line, wrote the correct information
alongside,  and  initialed  and  dated  the  change,  IAW  USMEPCOM
Regulation 40-8, paragraph 4-6.

The evaluation also addressed the APPLICANT’s two major contentions
of an inadequate investigation and questionable  lab  results.   In
regards to the APPLICANT’s claim that there is no  indication  that
his urine sample was retested and that  he  was  not  subjected  to
another drug and alcohol test, as pointed out  in  the  summary  of
procedures, all tests certified as positive are retested  prior  to
certification.  The APPLICANT was not asked  to  provide  a  second
sample for testing because that would not be a  re-test  since  any
drug metabolites in the APPLICANT’s body  would  likely  have  been
metabolized away by that point.  A test of a second specimen  would
be a different test altogether.

The investigation that led to the  APPLICANT’s  disenrollment  from
AFROTC did not consist only  of  this  drug  test.   Based  on  the
results  of  the  drug  test,  the  APPLICANT’s  AFROTC  detachment
commander initiated a disenrollment investigation.   The  APPLICANT
was notified of this action on 14 May 1998 and military counsel was
appointed to assist him.  The APPLICANT had the opportunity to make
an  oral  statement  and  present  evidence  in  his  behalf  at  a
disenrollment hearing.  The APPLICANT did not challenge  the  chain
of custody of his urine sample at the hearing.  The  APPLICANT  was
allowed to obtain drug tests at his own expense  and  included  the
results as part of his evidence.  The results of the private tests,
the government tests, as well as all  of  the  information  in  the
APPLICANT’s file was considered  by  the  detachment  commander  in
recommending disenrollment, and again by the AFROTC  Registrar  who
formally disenrolled the APPLICANT.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The APPLICANT’s counsel responded  to  the  Air  Force  evaluation.
Counsel again restated the basis for the  APPLICANT’s  request  and
stressed the following points in rebuttal:

        1.  The Government has failed to provide any evidence  that
the testing procedures utilized by Northwest Toxicology, Inc.  were
scientifically reliable for detecting drugs in a urine sample.

        2.  The Government has failed to prove that  the  chain  of
custody was maintained securely on the APPLICANT’s sample submitted
by the Government to Northwest Toxicology, Inc.

         3.  The  Government  failed   to   perform   an   adequate
investigation of the  alleged  positive  sample  submitted  by  the
applicant.

        4.  The Government failed to confirm  the  results  of  the
test by submitting the same sample submitted by  the  APPLICANT  to
Northwest Toxicology or another independent laboratory.

The APPLICANT  understands  the  importance  of  drug  and  alcohol
testing as that testing relates to persons entering the military or
persons on active duty.  The APPLICANT  only  disagrees  with  drug
testing to the extent that it is not  performed  properly  or  that
“positive” samples are assumed to be  valid  without  verification,
due process, or adequate investigation of  the  scientific  methods
used to arrive at certain results.  Greater care must be  given  to
those situations where a young person’s future might depend on  the
observance of proper procedures used by the military  to  determine
eligibility for military service.  The consequences of  a  positive
drug test  in  today’s  society  must  be  recognized  as  of  such
importance that an organization  would  engage  in  any  reasonable
means necessary to verify a positive result.  To simply state  that
a re-test of a cadet’s sample is  discretionary  suggest  that  the
Government has not considered the possibility of testing failure or
the possibility that the persons who perform drug  testing  do  not
always follow proper procedures.

Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

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.  We  took
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits
of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and  recommendation
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that  the  applicant  has
not been the victim of an error or injustice.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

___________________________________________________________________

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 16 November 2000, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
      Ms. Melinda Loftin, Member
      Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Mar 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFOATS/JA, dated 4 Aug 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 25 Aug 00.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 22 Sep 00,
                W/atchs.




                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair