RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00905
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  NONE

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable and reinstatement in the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Based on an article that was published in the Air Force Times in 1986,
urine specimens that were tested during the 1981-1982 timeframe at Air
Force and Army labs were  judged  to  be  scientifically  and  legally
unacceptable.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant began his active duty service in 1969.  He received referral
Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) in March 1975 and  December  1981.
He received a letter of reprimand for dereliction of duty in  November
1982.

On 21 November 1983, the applicant gave a urine  sample  which  tested
positive for the presence of marijuana.  He also received  an  Article
15 in December 1983 for unlawful  use  of  marijuana.   The  applicant
chose not to submit a written response to the allegation but  gave  an
oral statement to his commander.  The commander found  him  guilty  of
illegal use of marijuana and punished him pursuant to Article 15 by  a
reduction  in  grade  to  E-4.   The  applicant  did  not  appeal  his
commander's decision.

On 19 January 1984, applicant was notified of his  commander’s  intent
to recommend him for an Under Honorable Conditions (General) Discharge
for illegal use of marijuana.  The applicant,  after  consulting  with
counsel, requested a retest of his urine sample.  His urine sample was
retested and again tested positive for the presence of marijuana.  The
applicant offered a written
unconditional  waiver  on  13  March  1984,  requesting  an  honorable
discharge.   The  commander  approved  a  general  discharge   without
probation or rehabilitation for  the  applicant.   His  discharge  was
effective on 16 March 1984.  He served a total of 15 years,  6  months
and 10 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Separation Procedures Section, Separations Branch, HQ  AFPC/DPPRS,
reviewed the application and states the applicant did not  deny  using
drugs, nor did he submit any new evidence or identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the processing of  his  discharge.   DPPRS
recommends denying the requested relief.

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

The Senior Attorney-Advisor, HQ AFPC/JA, also reviewed the application
and states it is unfortunately true that Air Force Drug  Testing  Labs
have at times experienced lapses in  following  the  proper  processes
while testing urine samples.  However, these lapses do not  invalidate
all test results conducted during those  times.   The  Air  Force  has
consistently monitored its lab processes and  has  set  aside  adverse
action whenever  such  an  action  was  warranted.   The  article  the
applicant submitted attest to the rigorous oversight procedures.   The
article even indicated the blue ribbon panel  reviewed  the  specimens
during the alleged improprieties, and that "[t]he Air  Force  has  set
aside actions"  in  certain  cases.   There  is  no  evidence  in  the
applicant's record to indicate that his urine sample was  one  of  the
unacceptable samples that was referenced  in  the  newspaper  article.
The applicant's urine sample prior to his discharge was  tested  twice
and both times tested positive for marijuana.  According to the  Staff
Judge Advocate's legal review of the applicant's discharge it is noted
that the applicant claimed  his  urine  sample  testing  positive  for
marijuana was a result of a medical condition which caused the test to
record a false positive result.  However, there is  no  evidence  that
the applicant had a medical condition at the  time  he  submitted  his
urine sample that would have caused a false positive test.   There  is
no  indication  in   the   case   file   that   the   applicant   ever
straightforwardly denied using marijuana in November  1983,  prior  to
his urinalysis.  He provides no evidence to  support  that  his  urine
specimen was one of  the  unacceptable  urinalysis  results  in  1983.
Based on the evidence submitted that  office  recommends  denying  the
applicant's request to upgrade his discharge and reinstatement in  the
Air Force  (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
1 June 2001, for review and response.  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 not timely filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure of timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.   After  thoroughly
reviewing the evidence of record, we are not  persuaded  to  recommend
upgrading the discharge.  The applicant did not submit any evidence to
indicate that his urine sample was included  in  the  batch  that  was
found to be unacceptable.  As stated, in  the  AFPC/JA  advisory,  the
testing labs have experienced  lapses  in  proper  processing  of  the
testing of urine samples; however, these lapses  will  not  invalidate
all tests results conducted at that time.  The Air Force has instilled
measures  to  accommodate  those  whose  tests  were   found   to   be
compromised.  The applicant's urine sample was tested twice  and  both
times the sample tested positive for the presence of  marijuana.    In
addition, the applicant has never denied using marijuana prior to  his
discharge.  We therefore agree with the  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force and adopt  their  rationale  expressed  as  the  basis  for  our
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden  that  he
has suffered either 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 25 July 2001 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member
                 Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 March 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Available Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 April 2001.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 21 May 2001
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 June 2001




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair