RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC 2002-03465

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Since the incident leading to his  discharge  was  never  investigated,  his
discharge was wrong.

The applicant states that while in  the  service,  he  tested  positive  for
marijuana use and  was  given  a  second  chance.   He  was  assigned  as  a
hydraulics mechanic for C-130 aircraft.  On one  occasion,  he  was  driving
onto the flight line to check with an aircraft crew to  see  how  long  they
were going to be, so that he  could  complete  his  job.   On  the  way,  he
stopped by Quality Control and was given a citation for being too  close  to
an aircraft that was on max power run.  At the time, he did not  think  that
he was beyond the distance guidelines and the airman in the  vehicle  states
that they thought it was wrong that the citation was  issued.   He  accepted
the citation without incident; however, the following day, he  was  informed
that he was being discharged.  Since the discharge was  never  investigated,
his discharge was wrong.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 13  August  1981,  for  a
period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of  airman
first class (E-3).

On 22 December 1983, he tested positive  for  marijuana  use  during  random
urinalysis testing.

On 27 January 1984, the commander notified the applicant of  his  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment under  Article  15  of  the  Uniform  Code  of
Military Justice (UCMJ)  for  violating  Article  134  (i.e.,  drug  abuse).
Specifically, for wrongfully using marijuana at  Dyess  AFB,  Texas,  on  or
about 22 December 1983.   After  consulting  legal  counsel,  the  applicant
waived his right to a trial by court-martial and  accepted  the  nonjudicial
punishment.   After   considering   the   applicant’s   oral   and   written
submissions, on 2 February  1984,  the  commander  determined  that  he  did
commit the alleged offense and  imposed  the  nonjudicial  punishment.   The
punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of airman and  forfeiture  of
$150.00 per month for two months.  However, the reduction to  the  grade  of
airman was suspended until 6 July 1984.  The applicant did  not  appeal  the
punishment.

On  20  June  1984,  the  commander  notified  the  applicant  that  he  was
recommending his discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-10 for  a  pattern
of misconduct.  Specifically, for speeding on base, for which he received  a
Letter of Counseling (LOC); for  presenting  a  $60.00  check  to  the  Four
Seasons store with insufficient funds on deposit to  honor  the  check;  for
wrongfully using marijuana,  for  which  he  received  an  Article  15;  and
presenting an $8.00 check to the Class VI store with insufficient  funds  on
deposit to honor the check, for which he received a Letter  of  Admonishment
(LOA).   He  acknowledged  receipt,  consulted  with  military  counsel  and
submitted statements in his own behalf.

The discharge authority approved the discharge on 17 July 1984.

He was discharged on 18  July  1984,  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10
(Misconduct - Pattern  Discreditable  Involvement  with  Military  or  Civil
Authorities), with a general (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge.   He
completed 2 years, 11 months, and 6 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

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 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.   Furthermore,  he  has  provided  no  facts
warranting an upgrade of the discharge he received.

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 22 November 2002 for review and response within 30 days.  However, as  of
this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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  available
evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission,  we  find
no evidence of error or injustice.  In this respect, the  discharge  appears
to be in compliance with the governing regulation in effect at the  time  of
his separation.  The applicant has provided no  evidence  to  indicate  that
his separation was inappropriate.  Absent persuasive evidence applicant  was
denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not  followed,
or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to  disturb  the
existing record.

_________________________________________________________________

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  BC-2002-03465
in Executive Session on 10 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member
                       Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member




The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Nov 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 Nov 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Nov 02.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair