RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03732
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable and his narrative reason for separation be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He doesn’t feel that his discharge status  was  an  error  or  unjust,
because he did violate the Air Force drug policies.  However, he  does
not feel he should be punished for life.   Those  lapses  in  judgment
terminated his career and are still  affecting  his  ability  to  gain
employment with Federal agencies.

Applicant submits a copy of his DD  Form  214.   Applicant's  complete
submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted  from  applicant’s  military  personnel  records
reveals his Total Active Federal Military  Service  Date  (TAFMSD)  as
6 January 1975.  The applicant’s last enlistment was  in  the  Regular
Air Force on 14 September 1984 in the grade of sergeant for  a  period
of four years.  He received a total of 13  APRs  covering  the  period
from 6 January 1976 through 15 November 1984 with overall  ratings  of
8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,9,8,9,8, and 7.

The applicant received an Article 15 for  wrongful  use  of  marijuana
between on or about 1 February 1985 and on or about 20 February  1985.
He was reduced to airman first class and fined $200.

On 30 April 1985, the applicant’s  commander  notified  the  applicant
that he was being recommended for discharge due to  drug  abuse.   The
applicant was advised of his rights and that a general discharge would
be  recommended.   The   applicant   acknowledged   receipt   of   the
notification and, after consulting military legal counsel,  offered  a
conditional waiver of his right to a hearing before an  administrative
discharge board contingent upon his receipt of no less than a  general
discharge.   The  commander’s  recommendation   for   separation   was
initiated on 30 April 1985.  In a legal review of the  discharge  case
file dated 3 May 1985, an assistant staff judge advocate  assigned  to
the staff of the group commander found the file legally sufficient and
recommended that the case be forwarded to the discharge authority with
a recommendation that the applicant not be retained  but  that  he  be
discharged with a  general  discharge.   On  9  May  1985,  the  group
commander  recommended  that  the  discharge  authority  approve   the
recommendation for separation and accept the applicant’s  offer  of  a
conditional waiver of his rights.  This commander stated  it  was  his
opinion that probation and rehabilitation of the  applicant  were  not
considered in the best interest of the service.  On 17  May  1985,  an
assistant staff judge advocate assigned  to  the  discharge  authority
found the file legally sufficient and recommended that  the  applicant
be discharged without the offer of probation and  rehabilitation.   On
29  May  1985,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the   recommended
separation and directed that the  applicant  be  furnished  a  general
discharge.  The discharge  authority  determined  that  probation  and
rehabilitation were not appropriate.

The applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 3 June  1985  under
the provisions of  AFR  39-10,  Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen
(misconduct - drug abuse) with an under honorable conditions (general)
discharge.  He served 10 years, 4 months and 28 days on active duty.

On 2 January 1987, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered and
denied requests by the applicant that his  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable and the reason for his separation be changed.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRSP states the discharge was consistent  with  the  procedural
and substantive requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation.   DPPRSP
indicated that the applicant  did  not  submit  any  new  evidence  or
identify any errors or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge
processing.  They  therefore  recommend  denial  of  his  request.   A
complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 19 December 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded
to the applicant for review and response within 30  days,  and  on  22
January 2004, a copy of the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  (FBI)
Report was forwarded for review and response within 14  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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or   injustice.
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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 25 March 2004, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Beth M. McCormick, Member
                       Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member





The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2003-
03732 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Oct 03, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 26 Nov 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.




                             ROBERT S. BOYD
                             Panel Chair