RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01268
                             INDEX CODE:  110.00
                             COUNSEL:  None

                             HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He feels he deserves to  have  his  discharge  upgraded  to  honorable
because he served his country with honor.  His  service  records  will
reflect he received high reviews.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF)  on  8  July
1974 as an airman basic for a period of four years.

On 26 April 1977, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent
to initiate discharge action for conviction by civil authorities.  The
reason for the discharge action was:

            On 31 March 1977, the applicant was arrested and convicted
by civil authorities for possession of over eight ounces of marijuana.

The commander advised the applicant that military legal counsel  had
been obtained for  him.   In  additon,  the  commander  advised  the
applicant he  had  the  opportunity  to  request,  in  writing,  the
following rights:  to present  his  case  before  an  administrative
discharge board, to be represented by counsel, to submit  statements
in his own behalf and to waive the above rights.

The commander further recommended in his notification for  discharge
that the applicant’s service be characterized as general.

On 11 April 1977, the applicant acknowledged receipt of  the  Letter
of Notification and that legal counsel was made available to him.

On 26 May 1977, paragraphs one (changing section and paragraph)  and
three (changing characterization) of the 26 April 1977  notification
letter were amended.

On 26 May 1977, the applicant acknowledged receipt  of  the  amended
notification letter.

On 1  June  1977,  the  applicant  was  notified  an  administrative
discharge hearing was scheduled on 7  June  1977.   He  acknowledged
receipt of the administrative discharge hearing on 1 June 1977.

On 7 June 1977, the administrative discharge  board  recommended  the
applicant be discharged for misconduct because of a civil  conviction
with  a  general  discharge,  and  he  not  receive   probation   and
rehabilitation.

A legal review was conducted on 1 July 1977 in which the  staff  judge
advocate reviewed the case file and found  it  legally  sufficient  to
support separation and recommended the applicant be discharged with  a
general discharge.

On 6 July 1977, the discharge authority approved the  discharge  and
directed the  applicant  be  discharged  with  a  general  discharge
without probation and rehabilitation.

On 11 July 1977, the applicant was discharged under  the  provisions
of AFM 39-12 (misconduct - drug  abuse),  with  an  under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge.  He served three years and four days
of active service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is  attached
at 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.
Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of  the  discharge
authority.  The applicant did not provide  any  facts  to  warrant  an
upgrade of his discharge.   Based  on  the  information  and  evidence
provided they recommend the request be denied (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant  reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluation  and  states  the
marijuana he was charged with was not his.   He  served  364  days  of
probation and it was taken off his civil record.  He was given one day
less than one-year probation because his commander said based  on  the
regulations he could stay on  active  duty,  which  he  wanted  to  do
(Exhibit F).

The Board staff, on 16 June  2004,  requested  the  applicant  provide
documentation regarding his activities since leaving military  service
(Exhibit G) and on 8 July  2004,  the  FBI  report  was  forwarded  to
applicant (Exhibit H).

_________________________________________________________________

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   the   processing    and    the
characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in
accordance with Air Force policy.  We have considered the  applicant’s
overall quality of service; however, in view of his  misconduct  while
he was on active duty and  the  apparent  continued  misconduct  after
leaving active duty, we do not believe  that  clemency  is  warranted.
Furthermore, the applicant failed to respond to a request  to  provide
documentation regarding his post-service  activities.   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-
2004-01268 in Executive Session on 22 July 2004, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Apr 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 May 04.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 May 04.
      Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, undated.
      Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Jun 04, w/atch.
      Exhibit H. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Jul 04, w/atch.




                       LAURENCE M. GRONER
                       Panel Chair