RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02966
            INDEX CODES:  100.05, 100.06,
                                               110.02, A66.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

His narrative reason for separation be changed from  “drug  abuse”  to
“drug urinalysis.”

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2B be changed.

His records be corrected to reflect award of the Air  Force  Specialty
Code (AFSC) of 87130N.

His post-service achievements be reviewed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His post-service achievements should be reviewed  and  his  discharge,
reason for separation, and RE code should be changed; and, his records
should reflect an additional AFSC.

In support of his appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  DD  Form  293,
Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal  from  the  Armed
Forces  of  the  United  States,  a  summary  of  a  Security   Police
investigation, a letter pertaining to an audition for retraining,  and
post-service documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 28 Jun 82 for a  period
of six years in the grade airman basic.

On 12 Sep 85, the applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending that  he  be  discharged  for  commission  of  a  serious
offense, specifically, drug abuse.  The reason for this action was the
applicant’s wrongful use of marijuana between on or about 8 Jul 85, as
evidenced by  a  positive  urinalysis  specimen.   The  applicant  was
advised of his rights in the matter and that a general discharge would
be recommended.

On 1 Nov 85, the office of the Staff Judge Advocate  recommended  that
the applicant be discharged with a general discharge.

On 15 Nov 85, the discharge authority approved  the  discharge  action
and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge.

On 5 Dec 85, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of  AFR
39-10 (Misconduct - Drug Abuse) and furnished a general discharge.  He
was credited with three years, five months, and eight days  of  active
service.

On 27 Jan 88, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB)  considered
and denied his request to upgrade his general discharge to honorable.

By letter, dated 15  Oct  03,  the  Separations  Branch  (AFPC/DPPRSP)
notified the applicant that his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty, had  been  administratively  corrected  to
reflect his AFSC as 81152, rather than 81132,  and  his  character  of
service to reflect Under Honorable Conditions (General),  rather  than
General.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAC  indicated  that  a  thorough  review  of  the  applicant’s
personnel records substantiated that he possessed a  primary  AFSC  of
81152 (Law Enforcement Specialist) when he was discharged from  active
duty.  However, the letter provided by the  applicant  only  reflected
that he was auditioned and qualified to apply for retraining into  the
AFSC of 87130N  (Apprentice  Instrumentalist,  Guitar).   He  was  not
awarded the AFSC.  Although they did not support granting the specific
relief sought by the applicant, they do recommend that the applicant’s
records be corrected to reflect the AFSC of 81152.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAC evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRSP recommended denial indicating that the applicant  did  not
submit any new evidence or identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that
occurred in the discharge processing.  He did not  provide  any  facts
warranting an upgrade of his discharge, and his narrative  reason  for
separation was  correctly  given  as  referenced  by  the  commander’s
recommendation and legal review.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRSP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

EXAMINER'S NOTE: An Air Force evaluation pertaining to the RE code was
not received; however, prior to forwarding the case to the  Board  the
Air Force determined that the RE code assigned is correct.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  31
Oct 03 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.

      a.  Concerning the applicant’s request  that  his  discharge  be
upgraded and his reason for separation and RE Code be changed, we note
that the applicant had a positive urinalysis test for marijuana.  As a
result, he was given a general discharge for misconduct based on  drug
abuse and assigned an RE code of 2B.  No evidence has  been  presented
that would lead us to believe that his character of  service  and  the
reason for his separation were improper or contrary to  the  governing
directives under which they were effected, or that  the  RE  code  was
inappropriately assigned.  We  took  note  of  the  applicant’s  post-
service  documentation.   However,  due  to  the  seriousness  of  his
misconduct, we are not inclined to afford  him  any  relief  based  on
clemency at this time.  In view of the foregoing, and in  the  absence
of sufficient evidence to the contrary, the applicant’s  requests  are
not favorably considered.

      b.  Regarding  the  applicant’s  request  that  his  records  be
corrected to reflect award of the AFSC of 87130N,  we  note  that  the
applicant auditioned and qualified to apply for  retraining  into  the
AFSC.  However, no evidence has been presented which has shown to  our
satisfaction that he was ever  awarded  the  AFSC.   In  view  of  the
foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the  contrary,
the applicant’s request is not favorably considered.

      c.  We note that the applicant’s  records  have  been  corrected
administratively to reflect his AFSC as 81152, rather than 81132,  and
his  character  of  service  to  reflect  Under  Honorable  Conditions
(General),  rather  than  General.   Therefore,  no   further   action
concerning these matters is necessary.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2003-02966 in Executive Session on 2 Dec 03, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Sep 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAC, dated 10 Oct 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 16 Oct 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair