RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00861
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
                       COUNSEL:  Onondaga County
                                     Veterans Service
                       HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Under current regulations he would have  been  offered  treatment  for
drug abuse and allowed to serve out his enlistment and separated  with
an honorable discharge.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 19 December 1978, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force
as an airman (Amn) for a period of four years.

On 30 October 1981, applicant was notified of his commander's  intent
to recommend him for discharge for drug abuse.  The specific  reasons
for the discharge action were:

      a.    In a statement dated 27 January 1981, Airman First  Class
(A1C) D., stated the applicant used hashish, marijuana, lysergic acid
diethylamide (LSD) and amphetamines.

      b.    In a statement  dated  5  February  1981,  the  applicant
stated he used hashish, marijuana, LSD and amphetamines.

      c.    A statement provided by (Airman) Amn  V.  on  5  February
1981, stated the applicant used LSD.

      d.    A1C H. provided a statement on 6 February  1981,  stating
the applicant used amphetamines, hashish and LSD.

      e.    A1C E. provided a statement on 6 February  1981,  stating
the applicant used hashish and LSD.

      f.    A statement provided by A1C G., dated  7  February  1981,
stated the applicant used marijuana.

      g.     Senior  Airman  (SrA)  H.  provided  a  statement  dated
9 February 1981, stating the applicant used hashish.

      h.    A statement dated 26 May 1981, provided by A1C L.  stated
the applicant used hashish, marijuana and LSD.

      i.    A statement provided by  A1C  L.,  dated  15  June  1981,
stated the applicant used and purchased hashish on several occasions.

The  commander  stated  in  his  recommendation  for  discharge  the
applicant had received several briefings during basic  training  and
inprocessing to the wing on Air Force policy  concerning  drug  use.
The commander further recommended the applicant be  discharged  with
service   characterized   as   general   without    probation    and
rehabilitation.

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

On 29 July 1981, after consulting with  counsel,  applicant  invoked
his right to submit a statement.

A legal review was conducted on 2 December 1981 in which  the  staff
judge advocate  recommended  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  a
general discharge with no probation and rehabilitation.

On 8 December 1981, the discharge authority approved the discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 14 December 1981, in the grade of airman
first class with a general (under honorable  conditions)  discharge,
in accordance with AFM 39-12 (Misconduct - Drug Abuse).  He served 2
years, 11 months and 26 days of total active service.

Pursuant  to  the   Board’s   request,   the   Federal   Bureau   of
investigation, Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the  data
furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

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.
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 (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 2
April 2004, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has
been received by this office.

On 13 May 2004, the Board requested the applicant provide docmentation
on his post service activities (Exhibit F).

The applicant states he was a young and foolish youth who got involved
with the wrong element.  He is not proud  of  this.   He  was  led  to
believe that if he turned his life around and stayed out of trouble he
could have his discharge upgraded.  He has learned  his  lessons  from
his youth and has lead a positive and by the book life since then.

Applicant’s complete response with attachment is attached  at  Exhibit
F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of record, the Board majority is not persuaded  to  recommend
upgrading  the  discharge.   Based  on  the   documentation   in   the
applicant's records, it appears the processing of  the  discharge  and
the  characterization  of   the   discharge   were   appropriate   and
accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  The Board  majority
has considered the applicant’s overall quality of service and in  view
of the numerous instances of misconduct while  the  applicant  was  on
active duty, on balance, we do  not  believe  clemency  is  warranted.
Although the applicant has  presented  documented  evidence  of  post-
service activities and accomplishments, the  Board  majority  believes
that based on the severity of the drug abuse and the
drug of choice (LSD), they  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-
2004-00861 in Executive Session on 5 May 2004 and 21 June 2004,  under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

By majority vote, the Board recommended to deny the  application.  Mr.
Van Gasbeck voted to grant correcting the records and has submitted  a
Minority Report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Mar 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 Mar 04.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.
      Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, date 13 May 04.
      Exhibit G. Applicant’s Response w/atchs, undated.
      Exhibit H. Minority Report.




                                        DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                        Panel Chair






AFBCMR BC-2004-00861





MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                 FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully considered all aspects of this case and do not
agree with the majority of the panel that the applicant’s request
should be denied.

      After reviewing the available documentation, I believe
applicant’s discharge should be upgraded, on the basis of clemency
based on extraordinary post service accomplishments.

      Applicant has had to live with the adverse effect of his under
honorable conditions discharge for over 22 years, and while the
discharge may have been appropriate, I believe it would be an
injustice for him to continue to suffer from its effects.  From the
evidence before me, it appears that applicant performed his duties
well while in the service, with the exception of the behavior which
led to his discharge and has been a law-abiding citizen since his
separation.

      Certainly, I do not condone the behavior that led to his under
honorable conditions discharge; however, it serves no useful purpose
to the Air Force or to society in general to continue the nature of
his discharge at this late date.  Therefore, it is my decision that
his discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency






AFBCMR BC-2004-00861




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to ,                  be corrected to show that on 14 December
1981, he was honorably discharged and furnished an Honorable Discharge
certificate.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                  Air Force Review Boards Agency
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
                 CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Case,       , AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00861

      The applicant is requesting his under honorable conditions
(general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.  The
majority of the Board recommends denial of his request.  I strongly
disagree.

      My understanding of our legal system, as I am not a lawyer, is
that when one is convicted of a crime, one pays their debt to society
and when freed, one can then begin their life again, in most cases,
without stigma.  I believe that our clemency process reflects the same
principles.  An individual who makes mistakes in the Air Force, is
adjudicated and punished in a wide variety of ways including discharge
under less than fully honorable conditions.  The downgraded discharge
can be permanent.  However, to readdress such permanency, this Board
has the opportunity to look at an individual’s post-service record,
evaluate whether they have lived an honorable life and whether they
are deserving of clemency.  I have found over the years that my
standard is stricter then some.  I tend to look at whether an
individual not only led a good life since discharge but that he or she
has “gone above and beyond” to compensate for their earlier mistakes.

      With regard to the applicant’s case, there is no dispute he used
drugs while off duty.  Despite this lapse of judgment, the Evaluation
Officer found the applicant’s “performance during his tour of duty at
RAF Greenham Common was always satisfactory.  This was substantiated
by his APRs and interviews with his supervisors.”  Elements of his
performance were noteworthy and he received commendations from his
supervisors.  Nevertheless, his off duty drug use appropriately ended
his career with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

      However, rather than continuing down the road he had paved in
the Air Force, the applicant chose one of the most hazardous and
stressful careers possible, that of a Professional Firefighter and
Emergency Medical Technician for the City of Syracuse, New York.  He
has served his community honorably for 19 years.  As evidence of his
service, he has provided documentation to include 19 certifications
and/or certificates of attendance.  Having much experience with
courses in this career field, I know they are both cerebral and
extremely physical and require dedication to be accomplished
successfully.  Additionally, he has provided 2 character references
from his pastor and 12 letters and certificates of appreciation or
commendation.  Most notably, he has provided five (5) lifesaving
awards.  He has no arrest record according to the FBI report.  I do
not believe he could serve in his chosen vocation if he had a record.


      The applicant has had to live with the adverse effect of his
discharge for more than 22 years, and while the discharge may have
been appropriate, I believe it would be an injustice for him to
continue to suffer from its effects.  He has saved lives and is an
honorable man.  He now asks to be forgiven for his mistakes and that
his discharge be upgraded to honorable.  Truly, this man crosses my
threshold for clemency.




                                       DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                       Panel Chairman