RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03391
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The sentence he received as a result of  his  court-martial  was  sufficient
punishment for the offense.  He believes that being forced out  of  the  Air
Force was excessive and that his commander was trying  to  make  an  example
out of him.  He would have liked to have stayed in and  rebuild  his  career
but was denied probation and rehabilitation even though he  was  willing  to
do so.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air  Force  on  5
Dec 77.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of E-4,  having  assumed
that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Sep 80.

On 17 Mar 82, the applicant was notified by his commander of his  intent  to
recommend nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniformed  Code  of
Military Justice (UCMJ) for dereliction in the performance of his duties  in
that he drank alcoholic beverages while on duty.   He  was  advised  of  his
rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of  the  notification  on  22
Mar 82.  After consulting counsel, the applicant waived his right to  demand
trial by court-martial, accepted Article  15  proceedings,  and  provided  a
written presentation  to  his  commander.   On  23  Mar  82,  his  commander
determined that he committed  one  or  more  of  the  offenses  alleged  and
imposed punishment on the applicant.  He was ordered to forfeit $75 pay  per
month for 2 months.  The applicant elected not to appeal punishment.

On 11 Feb 83, the applicant was notified by his commander of his  intent  to
recommend nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ  for  wrongful
possession of marijuana and drug  paraphernalia.   He  was  advised  of  his
rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of  the  notification  on  16
Feb 83.  After consulting counsel, the applicant waived his right to  demand
trial by court-martial, accepted Article  15  proceedings,  and  provided  a
written  and  oral  presentation  to  his  commander.   On  17 Feb  83,  his
commander determined that he committed one or more of the  offenses  alleged
and imposed punishment on the applicant.  He was reduced  to  the  grade  of
airman first class, ordered to forfeit $380 pay per month for 2 months,  and
restricted to the limits of the base for 45  days.   The  applicant  elected
not to appeal his punishment.

On  17  May  83,  applicant  was  tried  by  special  court-martial  for   a
specification of  wrongful  possession  of  marijuana,  a  specification  of
wrongful use of marijuana, and a specification  of  wrongful  possession  of
drug paraphernalia.  He plead not guilty to the possession of marijuana  and
drug paraphernalia charges and guilty to the wrongful use  charge.   He  was
found  guilty  of  wrongful  use  of  marijuana  and  possession   of   drug
paraphernalia.  His sentence, adjudged on 17  May  83,  was  confinement  at
hard labor for 2 months, reduction to the grade of E-1,  and  forfeiture  of
$150 pay per month for 2 months. On 7 Jun 83, his sentence was approved  and
executed.

On  9  Mar  83,  applicant  was  notified  by  his  commander  that  he  was
recommending that he be discharged from the Air  Force  in  accordance  with
AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-49c.  The specific reason for  this  action  was  his
use of marijuana as evidenced by a urinalysis taken on 6 Jan 83; and his  17
Feb  83,  nonjudicial  punishment  for  possession  of  marijuana  and  drug
paraphernalia.   He  was  advised  of  his  rights  in   this   matter   and
acknowledged  receipt  of  the  notification  on  that   same   date.    The
recommendation for discharge  was  later  amended  to  include  his  use  of
marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia as  evidenced  by  a  special
court-martial order dated 7 Jun 83.   After  consulting  counsel,  applicant
requested a hearing before an administrative discharge board and elected  to
submit statements on his own behalf.   The  administrative  discharge  board
found that he did use marijuana between 16 Dec 82  and  6  Jan  83,  he  did
possess marijuana on 6 Jan 83, he did possess drug paraphernalia  on  6  Jan
83,  he  did  use  marijuana  on  27  Mar  83,  and  he  did  possess   drug
paraphernalia on 27 Mar 83.  The board recommended  that  he  be  discharged
because  of  misconduct  with  an  under  other  that  honorable  conditions
discharge and that he not be offered rehabilitation.  In a legal  review  of
the case, the acting wing staff  judge  advocate,  found  the  case  legally
sufficient.  On 17 Aug 83, the  discharge  authority  directed  that  he  be
discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge,  without
probation and rehabilitation.  Applicant was discharged from the  Air  Force
on 24 Aug 83.  He served 5 years, 6 months, and  19  days  on  active  duty.
The period 17 May 83 to 16 Jul 83 was considered time lost.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant's request.  DPPRS states  that
the  discharge  was  consistent  with   the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation and 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.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22  Nov
02 for review and comment within 30 days.  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  careful  consideration  of  the
applicant's request  and  the  available  evidence  of  record,  we  see  no
evidence of an error or  injustice  that  would  warrant  a  change  in  the
characterization of his service.  Evidence  has  not  been  presented  which
would lead us to believe that the actions  taken  to  affect  his  discharge
from the Air Force were improper  or  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the
governing regulation in effect at the time, or that the actions  taken  were
based on factors other than his own misconduct.  Given the  multiplicity  of
the offenses he committed against the  good  order  and  discipline  of  the
service, it is our opinion that the characterization of  his  discharge  was
proper and in compliance with the appropriate directives.   In  the  absence
of evidence to the  contrary,  we  find  no  basis  to  recommend  favorable
consideration of his request.

_________________________________________________________________



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  02-03391  in
Executive Session on 29 Jan 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
      Ms. Martha Evans, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Nov 02, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Nov 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Nov 02.




                                   PHILIP SHEUERMAN
                                   Panel Chair