RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01753
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected by changing the description of his misconduct
from “a user or abuser of illegal  drugs”  to  “a conspirator  in  the
purchase/sale/use of an illegal drug.”

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “2B”  be  changed  to  allow
eligibility to reenter the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His record is unjust due to the fact that  he  never  used  marijuana.
Although he made a poor judgment decision when he was young,  it  does
not change the fact that he has never failed a urine drug  screen  and
never would.  He took numerous drug screens while on active duty, both
before and after the incident.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a  copy  of  the  Air
Force Discharge Review  Board  Decision  Rationale.   The  applicant’s
complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular  Air  Force  on  26
August 1998.  He was progressively promoted to  the  grade  of  airman
third class (E-3),  with  an  effective  date  and  date  of  rank  of
10 October 1998.  He was reduced to the grade of airman  basic  (E-1),
with a date of rank (DOR) of 15 February 2002, pursuant to an  Article
15.

On 7 February 2000, applicant was notified of his  commander's  intent
to impose nonjudicial punishment on him under Article 15,  UCMJ.   The
misconduct applicant had allegedly committed was for  conspiring  with
another airman, on or about 10 January  2000,  to  commit  an  offense
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to wit:  wrongful use  and
possession of a controlled substance,  and  in  order  to  effect  the
object of the conspiracy he arranged for the purchase of marijuana  by
the other airman in violation  of  Article  81,  UCMJ.   Further,  the
applicant did, on or  about  26 January  2000,  wrongfully  impede  an
investigation, in the case of the other  airman,  by  making  a  false
official statement to the investigator, in violation of  Article  107,
UCMJ.  The applicant consulted a lawyer, waived his  right  to  demand
trial by court-martial and  accepted  nonjudicial  punishment.   After
considering all matters presented to him, the commander found that the
applicant did commit  one  or  more  of  the  offenses  alleged.   The
commander imposed punishment of  reduction  to  the  grade  of  airman
basic, with a new date of rank of  15  February  2000,  forfeiture  of
$502.00 pay for two months and 30 days of extra duty.   Applicant  did
not appeal the punishment.

On 1 March 2000, the applicant received notification that he was being
recommended for discharge for drug abuse.  The reason for this  action
was due to the applicant’s 10 January 2000 misconduct  for  wrongfully
conspiring to procure and use marijuana,  for  which  he  received  an
Article 15.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of  the  notification.
He waived his right to consult with counsel and his  right  to  submit
statements in his behalf.  The local Staff Judge Advocate  recommended
the  applicant  be  discharged  with  a  general  discharge,   without
probation  and  rehabilitation.   On  13 March  2000,  the   discharge
authority approved the recommended separation and  directed  that  the
applicant be issued a general discharge.

The applicant received a general discharge on 14 March 2000 under  the
provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct).  He had completed a total of 1
year, 6 months and 18 days and was serving  in  the  grade  of  airman
basic (E-1) at the time of discharge.  He received an RE Code  of  2B,
which defined means "Separated with a  general  or  under  other  than
honorable conditions."

Applicant's requests for upgrade of  his  discharge  to  honorable,  a
change of reason for discharge and a change of RE code were denied  by
the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 12 December  2002.   A
copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is appended at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be  denied.   DPPRS  believes
the discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the  discharge  regulation.   DPPRS  states  that,  in
accordance with the governing directives,  illegal  use  of  drugs  is
described as “the illegal, wrongful or improper use, possession, sale,
transfer or introduction onto a military installation  of  any  drug.”
The narrative reason for discharge on the applicant’s DD Form  214  is
“Misconduct” which is not  word  specific;  however,  it  is  correct.
Applicant’s Notification Letter sites the correct  paragraph  (5.54  -
Drug Abuse).  DoD provides the  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)
codes and the narrative reasons and DPPRS is prohibited from deviating
from those provided.  There is no SPD code or  narrative  reason  that
allows for the reason applicant is requesting.  The applicant did  not
submit any new evidence or identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that
occurred in the discharge processing.  Additionally,  he  provided  no
facts warranting an upgrade  of  his  discharge.   The  HQ  AFPC/DPPRS
evaluation is at Exhibit D.


HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied.  DPPAE stated that
the applicant’s RE  code  of  “2B”  is  correct.   The  HQ  AFPC/DPPAE
evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  18
July 2003 for review and response.  As of this date, no  response  has
been received by this office (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   We   thoroughly   reviewed
applicant’s  entire  record  and  the  circumstances  surrounding  his
discharge and found no evidence  that  responsible  officials  applied
inappropriate standards in effecting the applicant’s  discharge,  that
pertinent Air Force regulations were violated or  that  the  applicant
was not afforded all the rights to  which  entitled  at  the  time  of
discharge.  In view of the above and in the absence of  evidence  that
the applicant’s substantial rights were violated, that the information
contained in the discharge  case  file  was  erroneous,  or  that  his
superiors abused their discretionary authority, we are not inclined to
favorably consider his  request  to  change  the  description  of  his
misconduct.

4.  Applicant’s reenlistment eligibility (RE) code accurately reflects
the circumstances of his separation.  Therefore, no  basis  exists  to
recommend any change to this code.
_________________________________________________________________

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-2003-
01753 in Executive Session on 28 August 2003, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                  Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
                  Mr. James E. Short, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  AFDRB Hearing Record.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 Jun 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 10 Jul 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jul 03.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   CHAIR