RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03012
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was attributable to his medical condition.  It has  been
16 years since his discharge.  He has been through drug rehabilitation
and has overcome his problems.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of his DD Form
293, Application for the Review of Discharge  or  Dismissal  from  the
Armed  Forces  of  the  United  States.   The   applicant’s   complete
submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 2 June
1982 for a period of 4 years.  He was progressively  promoted  to  the
grade of senior airman, with an effective date and date of rank  of  2
June 1985.

On 24 April 1986, the applicant  received  notification  that  he  was
being recommended for discharge for commission of a serious offense  -
drug abuse.  The reason for this action was  due  to  the  applicant’s
wrongful use of marijuana on or about 14 March 1986, as evidenced by a
positive urinalysis test result.  The applicant  acknowledged  receipt
of the notification and indicated that military legal counsel was made
available to him.  The applicant waived his right to  submit  rebuttal
remarks to the discharge action.  The Staff  Judge  Advocate’s  office
indicated that the applicant’s service did not appear  to  warrant  an
honorable discharge.  On 15 May 1986, the discharge authority approved
the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be issued a
general discharge.

On 15 May 1986, the applicant received a general discharge  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-10 (misconduct - drug abuse).  He had completed a
total of 3 years, 11 months and 14 days and was serving in  the  grade
of senior airman (E-4) at the time of discharge.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 12 March 2003, that, on the basis of data
furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest record.

The Department of Veteran’s Administration records reflect that, on 30
November 2000, the applicant was granted a combined rating of 30%  for
postoperative Crohn’s Disease and abdominal wall abscess.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends the  application  be  denied.
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant  states  that  the  applicant  developed
Crohn’s Disease while on active duty, initially diagnosed and  treated
as an infected urachal remnant cyst.  He underwent  extensive  surgery
to remove the diseased tissues and apparently did well  following  his
discharge from the hospital in August 1985.   Although  the  pathology
report of  removed  tissues  were  consistent  with  Crohn’s  Disease,
medical records between the time of his August 1985 hospital discharge
and his administrative discharge for drug abuse in May 1986,  show  no
evidence of ongoing disease activity.  Following  his  discharge  from
the Air Force,  he  experienced  recurrent  symptoms  of  his  Crohn’s
Disease requiring treatment.  His condition was properly determined to
be service connected and rated by the Department of  Veterans  Affairs
(DVA).  The AFBCMR Medical Consultant  indicates  that,  although  the
medical problems during 1984 and 1985  are  impressive,  there  is  no
evidence in the record that at the time of  his  positive  urine  drug
screen (March - April 1986) that his chronic disease (Crohn’s Disease)
was active.  Had the applicant not abused illegal drugs, he would have
remained  on  active  duty  and  presumably  would  have   experienced
recurrent Crohn’s  Disease  that  would  have  likely  resulted  in  a
disability discharge.  Action and disposition in this case are  proper
and equitable reflecting compliance with  Air  Force  directives  that
implement the law.  The AFBCMR Medical  Consultant  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit C.


HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.   Based  upon  the
documentation in the file, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent
with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation.  DPPRS states that the applicant did not  submit  any  new
evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge process.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  21
February 2003 for review and response.  As of this date,  no  response
has been received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________

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.  His contentions are duly  noted;
however, we do not find these uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and  by
themselves sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale  provided
by the appropriate Air Force offices.  We  therefore  agree  with  the
recommendations of the respective Air  Force  offices  and  adopt  the
rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that  the  applicant
has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an  error
or an injustice.  We further noted  that  the  applicant  provided  no
documents to substantiate that he has maintained the standards of good
citizenship in the community since his discharge.  Should  he  provide
such evidence (as relayed in our  letter)  of  good  conduct  for  the
period  of  time  which  has  elapsed,  this  could  be  a  basis  for
reconsideration of his appeal based  on  clemency.   In  view  of  the
foregoing and in the absence of persuasive  evidence  indicating  that
the applicant was deprived of rights to which he was entitled or  that
inappropriate  standards  were  applied  in  his  case,  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 27 March 2003, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
                  Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-2002-03012.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Nov 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 Jan 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Feb 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Feb 03.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair