RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00651
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

No contentions stated.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of his DD Form
293, Application for the Review of Discharge  or  Dismissal  from  the
Armed  Forces  of  the  United  States.   The   applicant’s   complete
submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on  9 Dec
80 in the grade of airman basic.  He was progressively promoted to the
grade of airman first class, with an effective date and date  of  rank
of 1 Dec 81, and senior airman (promotion dates are unavailable).

On 15 Jan 85, applicant was notified that he was being recommended for
discharge for drug  abuse.   The  reasons  for  this  action  were  as
follows:

      a.  On  or  about  4  May  84,  the  applicant  wrongfully  used
marijuana.  For this offense, he was punished under Article 15,  UCMJ.
The commander imposed punishment of a reduction in grade  from  senior
airman (E-4) to airman first class (E-3), with a new date of  rank  of
15 Jun 84, forfeiture of $100 for 1 month and 30 days of  correctional
custody.

      b.  On or about 28 Sep 84, the  applicant  wrongfully  possessed
and used marijuana.  For this offense, he was punished  under  Article
15, UCMJ.  The commander imposed punishment of a reduction from E-3 to
airman (E-2), with a new date of rank of 10 Dec 84, forfeiture of $150
for 1 month and 14 days of extra duty.

The applicant was  notified  of  a  pending  Administrative  Discharge
Board, which he acknowledged on 29 Jan 85.

The Administrative Discharge Board was held at Hickam AFB, Hawaii,  on
7 Feb 85.  The Board recommended  that  the  applicant  be  discharged
because of misconduct based on drug abuse, with an  under  other  than
honorable  conditions  discharge,  and  that   he   not   be   offered
rehabilitation opportunities with  a  conditional  suspension  of  his
discharge.  On  13  Mar  85,  the  commander  approved  the  discharge
recommendation of “under other than honorable conditions.”

The  applicant  received  a  general  (under   honorable   conditions)
discharge on 15 Mar 85 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct -
Drug Abuse).  He had completed a total of 4 years, 3 months and 7 days
and was serving in the grade of airman (E-2) at the time of discharge.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV,  indicated on 9 May 02, that, on  the  basis  of  data
furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest record.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS noted  that
the commander recommended an  under  other  than  honorable  condition
(UOTHC) discharge; however, the applicant’s DD Form  214  reflects  he
received a general discharge.

DPPRS stated that  the  applicant  provided  no  facts  warranting  an
upgrade of his discharge.  After a complete review of the  applicant’s
case and the type of offenses, DPPRS believes a UOTHC discharge to  be
a harsh discharge and recommends the applicant’s DD Form 214 remain as
“general.”  However, if the Board disapproves of this  recommendation,
a new DD Form 214 will need to be issued reflecting a UOTHC discharge.

The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory  opinion  and  indicated  that  he
never possessed any marijuana and did not have any knowledge that  the
DD Form 214 was in error.  He never smoked marijuana  and  never  knew
you could test positive from inhaling it.  He would greatly appreciate
it if the Board would recommend that he keep  the  general  discharge.
The applicant’s complete submission 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 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  error  or  injustice  warranting  upgrade  of  his
discharge to honorable.  After thoroughly reviewing  the  evidence  of
record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we  agree  with
the opinion and recommendation of the  Air  Force  office  of  primary
responsibility  and  adopt  its  rationale  as  the  basis  for  their
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an  error  or
injustice.  Notwithstanding the above, we noted that  the  applicant’s
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or  Discharge  from  Active  Duty,
reflects  a  general  discharge  rather  than  the  under  other  than
honorable  condition  (UOTHC)  discharge  that  was  approved  by  the
discharge authority on 13 Mar 85.  In this respect, we note  that  the
Air Force office of primary responsibility considers the UOTHC to be a
harsh discharge and recommends the applicant’s DD Form 214  remain  as
general.  We agree with its assessment and further believe  that,  due
to the passage of time, it  would  be  an  injustice  to  correct  the
oversight. In view of the foregoing, we recommend that the applicant’s
DD Form 214 remain unchanged; i.e., a general discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of 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 5 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                  Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
                  Mr. Michael Maglio, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00651.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Mar 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Mar 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Mar 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter from Applicant, undated.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair