RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01594
            INDEX CODE 110.00  134.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    Any and all references to drug abuse be removed from his records.

2.    His discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated  incident
in 53 months of service with no other adverse action.

The applicant states that he had no previous record of drug  problems,  only
this one positive random test result for  marijuana.   Furthermore,  nothing
was said about the negative results from the second test that  was  done  at
the base level.  At the time, he was too young to fight for his  rights  and
was told not to fight it because  the  Air  Force  wanted  the  random  drug
testing to work.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 July 1982, the applicant enlisted in  the  Regular  Air  Force  for  a
period of six years.

On  18  January  1984,  the  applicant’s   commander   imposed   nonjudicial
punishment against him under Article 15 of  the  Uniform  Code  of  Military
Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully using marijuana.  The punishment consisted  of
reduction to the grade of airman first class and forfeiture of  $250.00  per
month for two months.  The applicant did not submit matters  in  his  behalf
and did not appeal the punishment.

On 26 March 1984, the applicant was notified by his commander of his  intent
to initiate administrative discharge action  against  him  for  drug  abuse.
The applicant acknowledged receipt on 27 March 1984,  and  after  consulting
with counsel, waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 23 April 1984, the applicant was discharged under the provisions  of  AFR
39-10 (Misconduct - Drug  Abuse),  with  service  characterized  as  general
(under honorable conditions).  He completed 4 years and 9 months  of  active
service.

On 14 November 1985, a similar request was considered and denied by the  Air
Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB).

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, has provided an investigative report  that  is  attached  at
Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Separation Procedures Section, AFPC/DPPRS, states that they believe  the
discharge was consistent with the procedural  and  substantive  requirements
of the discharge regulation.  In addition,  the  discharge  was  within  the
sound 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.  He provided no other facts warranting an  upgrade  of
the discharge.  Therefore, they recommend denial of his request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that since  his  discharge  he  has  been  employed  at
Northrop Grumman for 17 years, is married, with four children,  and  has  no
criminal record.  Even though he was never a habitual user of marijuana,  he
made a mistake with drugs in early 1984 that almost cost him his family.

Applicant’s complete response is at 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.  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
relief  should  be  granted.   The  article  regarding  faulty  drug   tests
submitted by the applicant is duly noted; however,  the  faulty  drug  tests
occurred during a different time period and at a different  laboratory  than
in the applicant’s case.  Applicant asserts that a second  test  produced  a
negative result.  However, evidence in the record reflects  that  a  re-test
was accomplished at the request of the applicant’s attorney,  and  was  also
positive  for  THC.   It  appears   that   responsible   officials   applied
appropriate standards in effecting the applicant’s  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.  We conclude, therefore, that the  discharge  proceedings
were proper and characterization of the discharge  was  appropriate  to  the
existing circumstances.

4.    We also find insufficient evidence to warrant  a  recommendation  that
the discharge be upgraded on the basis  of  clemency.   We  have  considered
applicant's overall quality of service, the events  which  precipitated  the
discharge, and available evidence related  to  his  post-service  activities
and accomplishments.  On  balance,  we  do  not  believe  that  clemency  is
warranted.

_________________________________________________________________

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 6 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                  Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
                  Mrs. Carolyn J. Watkins, Member




The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 May 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Jun 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Jul 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Oct 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Oct 01.



                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair