RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS



IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03917
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was a hardheaded kid who would not listen  to  reason.   Since  his
discharge, he has learned a lot and  his  life  has  changed  for  the
better.  He has been rehabilitated and he has cleaned up his life.

In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  provides  a   personal
statement, a letter of  support  from  New  York  State,  Margaret  A.
Stutzman Addiction Treatment Center, and a Letter of Recommendation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered into the Regular Air Force on 3 August 1972.  On
16 February 1974, charges were preferred  against  the  applicant  for
possessing opium, heroin, and  secobarbitol.   The  reason  for  these
charges was that on 17 December 1973, these substances were  found  on
his person and in his personal effects during a routine customs search
at the Ubon Air Terminal.  He was enroute to a  new  duty  station  in
California.  On 14 February 1974, he requested discharge for the  good
of the service.  This request was made after advisement by counsel  of
his rights and  with  the  understanding  that  he  could  receive  an
undesirable discharge.  The base legal office reviewed  the  case  and
strongly recommended approval of his request  for  discharge.   On  11
March 1974, the commander  approved  his  request  for  discharge  and
directed  that  applicant  be  furnished  an   undesirable   discharge
certificate.  He was separated on 20 March 1974, under the  provisions
of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability,  Misconduct,  Resignation,
or Request for Discharge for the Good of the  Service  and  Procedures
for the Rehabilitation Program (request for discharge for the good  of
the service), with an under other than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)
discharge.  He served 1 year, 7 months  and  18 days  of  active  duty
service.  The Air Force Discharge Review Board  (AFDRB)  reviewed  and
considered the applicant’s  case  for  change  of  his  discharge  and
concluded that a change was not warranted.  On  7 February  1975,  the
Air Force Board  for  the  Correction  of  Military  Records  (AFBCMR)
considered the case and determined no corrective action is warranted.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 4 March 2004, that on the  basis  of  the
data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  Based on the documentation on  file  in
the master personnel records, the discharge was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation.
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.

The AFPC/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
30 Jan 04, 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 an error or injustice to warrant changing  his  UOTHC
discharge   to   honorable.    We   find   no   impropriety   in   the
characterization  of   applicant's   discharge.    It   appears   that
responsible officials applied appropriate standards in  effecting  the
separation, and we do not  find  persuasive  evidence  that  pertinent
regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded  all  the
rights to which entitled at  the  time  of  discharge.   We  conclude,
therefore,  that   the   discharge   proceedings   were   proper   and
characterization of the discharge  was  appropriate  to  the  existing
circumstances.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence  to  warrant  a  recommendation
that the discharge be upgraded on the  basis  of  clemency.   We  have
considered applicant's overall quality of service and the events which
precipitated the discharge.  Based  on  the  evidence  of  record,  we
cannot  conclude  that  clemency  is  warranted.   Applicant  has  not
provided  sufficient  information  of  post-service   activities   and
accomplishments for us to conclude that  applicant  has  overcome  the
behavioral traits,  which  caused  the  discharge.   Should  applicant
provide statements from community leaders and acquaintances  attesting
to applicant's good character and reputation  and  other  evidence  of
successful post-service rehabilitation,  this  Board  will  reconsider
this case based on the new evidence.  We  cannot,  however,  recommend
approval based on the current evidence of record.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
03917 in Executive Session on 30 March 2004, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Member
                 Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Dec 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 Jan 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jan 04.





      FREDERICK R. BEAMAN III
      Panel Chair