RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  02-04026
                                        INDEX CODE:  110.02
                                        COUNSEL:  NONE

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to general.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The punishment was very harsh for his seven and a half  years  of  honorable
service.  He received a bad  conduct  discharge,  reduction  to  E-1  and  6
months confinement.  He was never offered  any  kind  of  rehabilitation  or
help for his problem.  After living with this  blemish  for  ten  years,  he
wants to get on with his life.  He feels that if we can elect  a  commander-
in-chief that has admitted to  prior  drug  use,  his  upgrade  is  a  minor
request.  He recently went to the VA for treatment  and  was  informed  that
his discharge was still in effect.

Applicant’s provides no supporting documentation.  His  complete  submission
is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 7 February 1979, the applicant contracted his initial enlistment  in  the
Regular Air Force.  He was progressively promoted to  the  grade  of  senior
airman (E-4).  He continued to reenlist, his last reenlistment occurring  on
13 February 1987, in the grade of  E-5,  for  a  period  of  6  years.   The
following is a resume  of  his  EPR  ratings,  commencing  with  the  report
closing 29 December 1989.

      PERIOD ENDING    PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

        29 Dec 89                 4
        05 Aug 90                 5
        07 Oct 91                 5
        14 Feb 92                 5
        31 Jan 93                 4

On 10 March 1993,  the  applicant  provided  a  urine  sample  which  tested
positive for THC at 246 ng/ml.  On 25 May 1993, the  applicant  was  charged
with wrongful use of marijuana, on diverse occasions, between  on  or  about
17 February 1993.  On 25 May 1993, after consulting counsel,  the  applicant
requested he be discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial  and  indicated
he understood that if the request  was  approved,  he  could  be  discharged
under other than honorable conditions.  On  27  May  1993,  the  applicant’s
commander accepted his request and initiated discharge  proceedings  against
him.  On 28 May 1993,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the  recommended
separation and directed that the applicant be discharged from the Air  Force
with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions.

On 3 June 1993, the applicant  was  discharged  with  an  under  other  than
honorable conditions discharge.  He had served 14  years,  3 months  and  27
days on active duty.

On 28 November 1995, the Air Force Discharge  Review  Board  considered  and
denied his request for a discharge upgrade.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS  states  that  based
upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation.   The
applicant  did  not  submit  any  new  evidence  or  identify  an  error  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 24 January 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the
applicant for review and response.  As of this date, we have not received  a
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  evidence
of  record,  we  find  no  impropriety  in  the  characterization   of   the
applicant's discharge.  While it is true that the applicant had compiled  an
outstanding service record prior to the events that led to  his  separation,
we believe his wrongful use of  marijuana  coupled  with  his  status  as  a
noncommissioned officer, overshadowed his prior record  to  a  degree  which
supported the service characterization he received.  The applicant  believes
his service characterization is harsh.  But,  it  is  our  opinion  that  an
under other than honorable conditions discharge was  appropriate  given  the
information  in  his  discharge  case  file  and  the  seriousness  of   his
misconduct.  Other  than  the  assertions  of  the  applicant,  he  has  not
provided documentary evidence, which would  lead  us  to  believe  that  his
discharge was contrary to the provisions of the  governing  directive  under
which it was  effected,  that  his  commanders  abused  their  discretionary
authority, or that the information contained in the discharge case file  was
factually incorrect.  In the absence of evidence by the applicant  attesting
to a successful post-service adjustment in the years  after  his  discharge,
we are not inclined to extend clemency at this time.   However,  should  the
applicant provide evidence at some  later  time  showing  he  has  become  a
productive and successful member of society, and that he has  exhibited  the
qualities associated with good citizenship, he may provide evidence of  that
fact to the Board with a request for clemency.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable 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 16 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr, Panel Chair
      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
      Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 January 2003.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 January 2003.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 January 2003.





                                   ROSCOE HINTON JR
                                   Panel Chair