RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01138
            INDEX CODE 110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge states that he was discharged  for  drug  and  alcohol  abuse;
however, he never tested positive for alleged drug use and  admits  that  he
was present at the scene of the crime.

The applicant states he was part of a drug arrest that  took  place  in  the
summer of 1979.  He contended then, as  he  does  now,  that  if  he  had  a
problem, it was with alcohol, not drugs.  His admission of using alcohol  to
excess was twisted  and  used  against  him,  although  his  drinking  never
affected his job performance as indicated  by  his  firewall  9  performance
reports.  Regardless, he is now free of alcohol.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  4  August  1976  for  a
period of  four  years  and  entered  active  duty.   He  was  progressively
promoted to the grade of senior airman.

The applicant was notified by the commander on 9 March 1979  of  the  intent
to impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of  the  Uniform  Code  of
Military Justice  (UCMJ)  for  violating  Article  111.   Specifically,  for
operating  a  vehicle  while  drunk,  on  or  about  3  March  1979.   After
consulting military counsel on 13 March 1979,  the  applicant  accepted  the
nonjudicial punishment and waived his right to trial by court-martial.   The
applicant made an oral presentation to his commander, and on 19 March  1979,
the commander determined that he did commit the alleged offense and  imposed
punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of airman and forfeiture  of
$35.00.  However, the reduction in grade was suspended until  15  May  1979.
The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 22 June 1979, the applicant was  a  passenger  in  a  vehicle  which  was
stopped for a random vehicle entry point check and  found  to  possess  21.3
grams of marijuana.  He  was  offered  and  accepted  participation  in  the
Strategic  Air  Command  (SAC)  Centralized  Rehabilitation   Program.    He
attended the program; however, he did not successfully complete the  program
and was eliminated.

On 17 September 1979, the applicant was notified of his  commander’s  intent
to recommend his discharged for drug  abuse.   The  applicant  conditionally
waived his right to an  Administrative  Discharge  Board  (ADB)  conditioned
upon his receiving a general discharge.   However,  his  conditional  waiver
was rejected by the discharge authority.

On 21 November 1979, a Board of Officers convened to determine  whether  the
applicant should be discharged prior  to  the  expiration  of  his  term  of
service.  The board found that the applicant  had  committed  acts  of  drug
abuse based on the fact that at, or about 1235 hours, 22 June 1979,  he  was
found in wrongful possession of 21.3 grams of  marijuana  at  K.  I.  Sawyer
AFB, Michigan, is subject to discharge, and is  not  eligible  to  promotion
and rehabilitation.  Therefore, the board recommended he be discharged  with
a general discharge.

The discharge authority approved the recommendation of the  ADB  and  on  20
December 1979, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR  39-
12 (Misconduct - Drug Abuse - Board).   His  service  was  characterized  as
general (under honorable conditions).  He completed 3 years, 4  months,  and
17 days of active service.

On  8  September  1981,  the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board   (AFDRB)
considered and denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.

Applicant’s resume of performance follows:

             PERIOD ENDING                 OVERALL EVALUATION

           3 Feb 78                            9
           5 Oct 78                            9
          16 Sep 79                            6

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states,  in  part,  that
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  has
not submitted any new evidence or identify any  errors  or  injustices  that
occurred in the processing of his discharge.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 10 May 2002 for review and response within 30 days.  However, 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 to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice.  After thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence
of record and  noting  the  applicant’s  complete  submission,  we  find  no
evidence of  error  or  injustice.   In  this  respect,  we  note  that  the
applicant’s discharge appears to be in compliance  with  the  governing  Air
Force Regulation in effect  at  the  time  of  his  separation  and  he  was
afforded all the rights to which entitled.  The applicant  has  provided  no
evidence to indicate that his  separation  was  inappropriate.  There  being
insufficient evidence to the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that  the
discharge be upgraded on the basis of  clemency.   We  have  considered  the
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 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  Docket  Number  ?(DN)  in
Executive Session on 25 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
                       Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Apr 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 Apr 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 02.




                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair