RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03091
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for his discharge be changed from  “Misconduct-
Drug Abuse.”

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He made an error in judgement on his 21st birthday and  took  a  few
drags of  a  marijuana  cigarette.   The  next  day  he  received  a
commander  directed  urinalysis,  which  came  back   positive   for
marijuana use.  He was not then or now a drug abuser.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at  Exhibit
A.

__________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty as an airman basic on 24  Jan  85.
On  24  Feb  87,  the  applicant  was  given  a  commander  directed
urinalysis which returned positive.  On 20 Apr 87, the applicant was
given a letter of reprimand based on the positive  result  from  his
urinalysis.  On 1 Jun 87, he was notified by his commander  that  he
was  being  recommended  for  discharge  from  the  Air  Force   for
misconduct.  The reason for the action was that on or about  24  Feb
87, the applicant wrongfully used marijuana.

On 1 Jun 87, the applicant acknowledged receipt of  the  commander’s
intent to discharge him.  The applicant consulted legal counsel  and
submitted a statement  on  his  behalf  claiming  that  he  was  the
passenger in a car with several friends who were smoking  marijuana.
Although he indicates that he did not smoke any  marijuana  himself,
being a passenger in the car  caused  it  to  get  into  his  system
resulting in the positive urinalysis test.

On 1 Jun 87, the applicant’s squadron section commander  recommended
to the Combat Support Commander that the applicant be discharged for
misconduct and furnished an honorable discharge.  On 26 Jun 87,  the
Combat Support Group staff  judge  advocate  found  the  recommended
action legally sufficient and  recommended  that  the  applicant  be
separated with an honorable discharge.  On 29  Jun  87,  the  Combat
Support Group commander recommended to the discharge authority  that
the applicant be separated from service with an honorable  discharge
without probation and rehabilitation.  On 15  Jul  87,  staff  judge
advocate for the discharge authority found the case  to  be  legally
sufficient and also recommended that the applicant be separated with
an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  On  17
Jul 87, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s  separation
with  an  honorable  discharge  certificate  without  probation  and
rehabilitation.

On 22 Jul 87, he  applicant  was  separated  from  service  with  an
honorable  discharge  without  probation  and  rehabilitation.   The
narrative  reason  for  separation  on  his  DD  Form  214  reflects
“Misconduct-Drug Abuse.”

__________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request.   Based  on
the evidence in the file, they believe the discharge was  consistent
with the procedural and substantive requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation.  The applicant  did  not  submit  any  new  evidence  or
identify any errors or injustices that  occurred  in  the  discharge
processing.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
1 Nov 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response
has not been received.

__________________________________________________________________

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.   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.   The  Board  notes  that  in  a
statement, dated 23 Apr 87, the applicant  claimed  that  he  was  a
passenger  in  a  car  where  marijuana  was  being  smoked  by  the
occupants.  He maintained that he never smoked any himself.  In  his
application to the Board, the applicant states that he “took  a  few
drags of a marijuana cigarette.”  The applicant does not  offer  any
explanation for this inconsistency.  Thus, there does not appear  to
be  any  error  or  injustice  in  the  actions  taken  against  the
applicant.  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 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 02-03091
in Executive Session on 16 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Member
      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Sep 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 22 Oct 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Nov 02.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair