RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03358
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  be
upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he was in the service he was very young and head strong.  He  did
not believe he was doing any wrong and that he  was  the  only  person
doing right.  But as he has grown older, time has proved him wrong and
he now knows better.  He apologizes to the United  States  of  America
and the United States Air Force for all the trouble he caused when  he
was younger and he regrets all of his action and is very sorry for his
past mistakes.

It has been over twenty years since his discharge and he has become  a
good citizen.  He would appreciate an upgrade.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 May 1973, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as  an
airman first class for a period of six (6) years.

On 1 May 1978, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to
initiate discharge action against him for Drug Abuse.   The  commander
recommended  an  under  other  than   honorable   conditions   (UOTHC)
discharge.  The reasons for the discharge action were:

      a.  The applicant on or about  19  October  1973,  violated  a
lawful general regulation by possessing 162.71 grams, more or
less, of marijuana, for which he was  convicted  by  general  court-
martial.

      b.  The applicant on or about  7  November  1975,  violated  a
lawful general regulation  by  wrongfully  selling  marijuana.   The
applicant on or about 11 November 1975, violated  a  lawful  general
regulation by wrongfully selling marijuana.

The commander advised the applicant of his right  to  consult  legal
counsel and that military legal counsel had been obtained  for  him;
to present his case to an administrative  discharge  board;  and  to
submit statements in his own behalf; or waive the above rights after
consulting with counsel.

On 8 May 1978, after consulting with counsel, applicant  waived  his
right  to  an  administrative  discharge  board  and  to  submit   a
statement.  It was further noted that if the applicant  received  an
other than honorable discharge it would be  under  conditions  other
than honorable and as a result of such a discharge the applicant may
be deprived of veteran’s benefits;  and  may  encounter  substantial
prejudice in civilian life situations  where  the  type  of  service
rendered in any branch of the Armed Forces or the type of  discharge
received therefrom may have bearing.

A legal review was conducted on 9 May 1978 in which  the  staff  judge
advocate recommended the applicant be discharged with  an  other  than
honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 11 May 1978,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the  discharge
without probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged on 30 May 1973,  in  the  grade  of  airman
first class with service characterized as UOTHC, in accordance  with
AFR 39-12 (Drug Abuse).  He served a total of 4 years, 11 months and
13 days of active service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is  attached
at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not  submitted  any  evidence  nor
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of
his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's  file,
they believe his discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulations  of  that  time.
Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of  the  discharge
authority.  Therefore, based on
the information and evidence provided they recommend  the  applicant's
request be denied (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant in  support  of  his  request  submitted  two  character
letters from his pastor and a copy of a certificate from  the  Georgia
Bureau of Investigation (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 of 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 are not persuaded to  recommend  upgrading  the
discharge.  Based on the documentation in the applicant's records,  it
appears that the processing of the discharge and the  characterization
of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance  with
Air Force policy.  We have considered the applicant’s overall  quality
of service and in view of the numerous instances of  misconduct  while
the applicant was on active duty, we do not believe that  clemency  is
warranted.   The  applicant  provided  evidence  of  his  post-service
activities, however, the FBI report shows the  applicant  was  charged
and arrested for  similar  misconduct  that  was  the  basis  for  his
discharge.  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 AFBCMR Docket Number Bc-
2002-03358 in Executive Session on 24 April 2003 under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
                 Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Nov 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Dec 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Dec 02.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Response, dated 3 Feb 03, w/atchs.




                                        THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                        Vice Chair