RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC 2002-03599

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated  incident
and had he been offered rehabilitation/counseling, he would have  been  able
to continue his military career.

The applicant states that since the isolated incident, he has never been  in
any type of legal trouble or been arrested.  He is an  honest,  hardworking,
productive American citizen.  An upgrade of his discharge will help make  it
possible for him to purchase land, build a home, and enjoy his  later  years
of life.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  31 August  1973,  for  a
period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of  airman
first class.

On 12 March 1974, the commander notified the  applicant  of  his  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment under  Article  15  of  the  Uniform  Code  of
Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully possessing marijuana on  27  February
1974.  The applicant waived his right to a trial by  court-martial  and  did
not submit matters in mitigation, extenuation,  or  defense.   On  13  March
1974, the commander imposed punishment consisting of reduction to the  grade
of airman basic  and  forfeiture  of  $100.00  per  month  for  two  months.
However, the reduction in grade was suspended until  5 September  1974.   He
did not appeal the punishment.

He completed the Air  Force  Drug  Rehabilitation  Program  on  16 September
1974.

On 18 December 1974, the commander notified the applicant of his  intent  to
impose  nonjudicial  punishment  under  Article  15,  UCMJ,  for  wrongfully
possessing marijuana on 24 October 1974.   After  consulting  with  military
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 presentations, the commander imposed punishment  consisting
of reduction to the grade of airman, with a  date  of  rank  of  24  January
1975.  On 5 February 1975, he appealed the punishment on  the  grounds  that
it was unduly harsh; however, on 6 February 1975, his appeal was denied.

He was issued a Letter of Reprimand on 30 December  1974,  for  having  been
arrested by  the  Big  Spring  Police  Department  on  2 November  1974  for
possession of marijuana and a prohibited weapon (.38 caliber revolver).

In a letter, dated 27 February 1975, the commander  notified  the  applicant
of his intent to recommend his discharge under the provisions of AFM  39-12,
Chapter 2, Section  B,  Paragraph  2-15c  (Drug  Abuse),  with  his  service
characterized as undesirable.  The commander indicated that his reasons  for
the proposed action were the applicant’s wrongful  possession  of  marijuana
on two occasions and his arrest by the  Big  Spring  Police  Department  for
possession  of  marijuana  and  a  .38  caliber  revolver.   The   applicant
acknowledged receipt  of  the  proposed  discharge  action,  consulted  with
military legal counsel, and waived his right to an administrative  discharge
board contingent  upon  his  receipt  of  either  an  honorable  or  general
discharge.

On 28 February  1975,  the  group  commander  recommended  approval  of  the
applicant’s conditional waiver, with a general discharge.

The discharge  authority  approved  the  applicant’s  general  discharge  on
14 March 1975.

On 19 March 1975, he was  discharged  under  the  provisions  of  AFM  39-12
(Unfitness - Drug Abuse),  with  service  characterized  as  general  (under
honorable conditions), and issued an RE code of 2.  He completed 1  year,  6
months, and 19 days of active service, with no time lost.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states,  in  part,  that
the discharge was consistent with  the  normal  procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, 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.  He  provided  no  other  facts  warranting  an
upgrade of the 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 20 December 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.

4.  It appears that  the  applicant  believes  his  general  discharge  will
hamper his future efforts to purchase land and build a home.  However,  most
veterans benefits are given to eligible individuals, such as the  applicant,
who have received general (under honorable conditions) discharges.
_________________________________________________________________

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-2002-03599
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 18 Nov 02.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Dec 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Dec 02.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair