RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00069
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge should be upgraded based on the statute of limitations.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 22 September 1983, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force
as an airman basic for a period of four years.

On 30 August 1984, the  applicant  was  notified  of  his  commander's
intent to recommend him for discharge for misconduct.

The commander stated the reason for the proposed discharge was  on  23
May 1984, the applicant tested positive for marijuana use.

In the recommendation for discharge, the commander cited the following
derogatory information:

      a.    On 12 January  1984,  the  applicant  received  a  parking
ticket.

      b.    On 23 February 1984, he received a letter of  admonishment
(LOA) for excessive speed on a parking lot.

      c.    On 18 April 1984, the applicant was counseled on the  Open
Mess billing system due to his account being overdue.

      d.    On 14 May 1984, the applicant was counseled  on  the  Open
Mess billing system due to his account being overdue.

The commander indicated in  his  recommendation  for  discharge  the
applicant  had  been  counseled  for  a  variety  of   other   minor
infractions and was enrolled in the Drug Rehabilitation Program.  He
further recommended the  applicant’s  service  be  characterized  as
under honorable conditions (general) and he  be  discharged  without
probation and rehabilitation.

The commander advised the applicant of  his  right  to  consult  legal
counsel and that legal counsel had been obtained to assist him; and to
submit statements in his own behalf, or waive the above  rights  after
consulting with counsel.

On 19 October 1984, after consulting with counsel, applicant invoked
his right to submit a statement.

On 4 September 1984, the applicant’s legal counsel requested a delay
in the discharge proceedings in order for him to be  administered  a
polygraph examination.

On 11 October 1984, the applicant underwent a polygraph examination.
 A review of the  polygraph  examination  determined  deception  was
indicated in the applicant’s responses to relevant questions.

On 25 October 1984, a legal review was conducted in  which  the  staff
judge advocate (SJA) recommended the applicant be discharged  with  an
under honorable conditions (general) discharge without  probation  and
rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged on 2 November 1984, in the grade of  airman
with  an  under  honorable  conditions   (general)   discharge,   in
accordance with AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Drug Abuse).   He  served  1
year, 1 month and 11 days of active service.

The applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge  Review
Board (AFDRB) to  have  his  under  honorable  conditions  (general)
discharge upgraded to honorable.  The AFDRB denied  the  applicant’s
request on 17 March 1987.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not  submitted  any  evidence  nor
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of
his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's  file,
they believe his discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge
regulations of that time.  Also, the discharge was  within  the  sound
discretion of the discharge authority.  Also, he did not  provide  any
facts  to  warrant  an  upgrade  of  his  discharge.   Based  on   the
information and  evidence  provided  they  recommend  the  applicant's
request be denied.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
13 February 2004, for review  and  response.   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 of 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  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an  error  or  an  injustice.   Based  on  the  documentation  in  the
applicant's records, it appears that the processing of  the  discharge
and  the  characterization  of  the  discharge  were  appropriate  and
accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-00069 in Executive Session on 23 March 2004, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
                 Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Jan 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Feb 04.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Feb 04.




                                        RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                        Panel Chair