RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01832
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to  an
honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires his discharge be upgraded.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of his  DD Form  214
(Certificate Of Release Or Discharge From  Active  Duty)  and  DD  Form  215
(Correction to DD Form 214).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  27  April  1979  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four years.

On 1 February 1982, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent  to
initiate discharge action against him for  Misconduct  -  Drug  Abuse.   The
commander  specifically  cited  the  applicant’s  voluntary  acceptance   of
nonjudicial punishment pursuant to Article  15,  Uniform  Code  of  Military
Justice (UCMJ)  on  4  January  1982,  for  wrongful  use  and  transfer  of
marijuana at Eielson AFB, Alaska, on or about 4 October 1981.  He was  found
guilty by his commander who imposed the following  punishment:  a  suspended
reduction to airman and a forfeiture of $150.00 per  month  for  one  month.
The applicant did not appeal the punishment.  The Article 15  was  filed  in
his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 7 January 1982, after consulting with counsel, the applicant  waived  his
right to a trial by court-martial, he desired to make an  oral  presentation
and did not  desire  that  it  be  public  and  did  not  submit  a  written
presentation.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action  that  on
27 September 1981, the applicant was counseled  for  failure  to  report  to
work.  On 28 October 1981, he was counseled for failure  to  have  technical
data available while performing maintenance on his assigned aircraft;  on  2
November 1981, he was counseled for failure to  obey  an  order  by  a  Non-
Commissioned Officer (NCO); on 19 November 1981, he  received  a  letter  of
reprimand (LOR) for failure to report  to  his  duty  section  and  complete
required training, in violation of Article  91,  UCMJ.   The  applicant  was
offered rehabilitation in accordance with AFR 30-2 on 14  January  1982  and
accepted rehabilitation on that date.  On 18  January  1982,  the  applicant
declined to participate in the rehabilitation program.   The  commander  did
not recommend probation and rehabilitation under the provisions  of  Chapter
4, AFM 39-12.

The commander advised the applicant that an evaluation officer would  review
his case at which time he would be counseled and given  the  opportunity  to
submit a rebuttal and make statements in his  own  behalf.   On  3  February
1982 the evaluation officer reviewed his case and on 5  February  1982,  the
evaluation  officer’s  recommendation  indicated  that  the  applicant   was
unsuitable for further military service in the United States Air  Force  and
he was not a suitable candidate for rehabilitation under the  provisions  of
AFM 39-12, Chapter 4.  She recommended he be discharged from the  Air  Force
and furnished a general discharge.

After consulting with counsel,  applicant  waived  his  right  to  submit  a
rebuttal and to make statements in his own behalf.

On  10  February  1982,  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  recommended  that  the
applicant be discharged  because  of  misconduct  under  the  provisions  of
paragraph  2-15(c),  Section  B,  Chapter  2,  AFM  39-12,  with  a  general
discharge and without the opportunity to participate in  the  probation  and
rehabilitation program under Chapter 4, AFM 39-12.

On 16 February 1982, the discharge authority approved the discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 22 February 1982, in the grade of  airman  first
class with a general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge,  under  the
provisions of AFM 39-12(Misconduct - Drug Abuse).   He  served  2  years,  9
months, and 26 days of total active military service.

_________________________________________________________________




AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommended  denial.   They  indicated  that  based   upon   the
documentation in the file, they believe the discharge  was  consistent  with
the procedural and substantive requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation.
Additionally, the discharge 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.   He
provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.  He has  not
filed a timely request.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 11 July 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response within 30  days.   As  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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  an  error  or  injustice.   After  thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the  applicant  has  been  the
victim of either  an  error  or  an  injustice.   The  discharge  apparently
complied with the governing regulation in effect at  that  time;  therefore,
we  believe  his  separation  was  appropriate.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;  however,
the Board is of the opinion that the applicant has not been  the  victim  of
an error or injustice.

_________________________________________________________________










THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an 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-2003-
01832 in Executive Session on 21 August 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
                 Mr. E. David Hoard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 April 2003, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 July 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 July 2003.




                       PATRICIA D. VESTAL
                       Panel Chair