RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02163
            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:

Applicant makes no contentions.

Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29 January 1981  for  a
period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the  grade  of
airman first class on 29 January 1982, senior airman on 1  June  1984,
and sergeant on 1 June 1985.   He  received  five  airman  performance
reports (APRs) closing 25 March 1982, 25 March 1983, 23 July 1983,  24
July 1984 and 18 April 1985 in which the overall evaluations were “8,”
“8,” “8,” “9,” and “9.”

On 4 March 1986, the applicant’s commander notified him  that  he  was
recommending discharge from the Air Force  for  the  commission  of  a
serious  offense  –  drug  abuse.   The  commander  was   recommending
applicant receive an under honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge
based on the fact he wrongfully used marijuana on or about 16  January
1986 as evidenced by a urinalysis report which tested positive for THC
and an Article 15, dated 20 February 1986.   Punishment  consisted  of
reduction to the grade of airman first class.  Applicant  acknowledged
receipt of the notification of discharge on 4  March  1986  and  after
consulting with legal counsel submitted statements in his own  behalf.
The  base  legal  office  reviewed  the  case  and  found  it  legally
sufficient to support discharge and  recommended  an  under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge without  probation  and  rehabilitation
(P&R).  The discharge authority approved the separation  and  directed
that applicant  be  discharged  with  an  under  honorable  conditions
(general) discharge without P&R.

The applicant was separated from the Air Force on 27 March 1986  under
the provisions of  AFR  39-10,  Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen
(misconduct  –  drug  abuse),  with  an  under  honorable   conditions
(general) discharge.  He served 5 years, 1 month and 29 days on active
duty.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the discharge was consistent with the procedural and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.   The  discharge
was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Therefore, they
recommend denial of the applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 30 July 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  On  1 September
2004, the applicant was invited to provide information  pertaining  to
his activities since leaving the service.   On  15 September  2004,  a
copy of the FBI report was submitted to the applicant for  review  and
response (Exhibit E).

In a letter dated 21 September 2004, applicant states he  has  been  a
distributor of electronic cleaning appliances since his discharge from
military service in 1985.  He has owned several locations in Ohio  for
a number of years.  Three years ago he joined VFW  post  2799  in  New
Springfield, Ohio, and this year was elected Jr. Vice  Commander,  due
to his business experience and varied people skills.   Their  post  is
one of the few that is on an upward swing and  the  current  commander
would like to see  him  serve  as  a  future  commander,  however,  he
strongly feels that his type of discharge would be viewed  unfavorably
by the senior members of their post, and it may prohibit his election.
 Because of the aging of their current veterans and with the hopefully
potential influx of Afgan and Iraq veterans in  the  near  future,  he
could help bridge the gap from the Vietnam era to veterans of  foreign
wars today.

He often recalls his days  in  the  Air  Force  and  realizes  what  a
positive influence it has had  on  his  life  and  the  lives  of  his
children.   Respect,  confidence,  teamwork,  dedication,  pride   and
discipline, experiences  he  gained,  have  guided  him  through  many
challenges.  One indiscretion has scarred almost six years of military
life, and now it has come to haunt him.  The only thing  he  hopes  to
gain with this upgrade is to serve veterans and their families through
the great work of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Applicant's complete response is 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 to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  Evidence has  not  been
presented which would lead us to believe that  the  applicant’s  under
honorable conditions (general) discharge was erroneous or unjust.  The
available evidence indicates that the applicant’s discharge was  based
on the fact he wrongfully used marijuana as evidenced by a  urinalysis
report which tested positive for THC, which is a serious offense.   He
is now seeking an upgrade to his discharge to qualify  for  employment
opportunities.  However, he  has  provided  no  evidence  showing  his
discharge was improper or contrary to the provisions of the  governing
regulation at the time it was effected or that his  commanders  abused
their discretionary authority.  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, the events which precipitated the  discharge,  and  available
evidence related to post-service activities and  accomplishments.   On
balance, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.  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 28 october 2004, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
                 Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Jul 04.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Jul 04.
      Exhibit E. Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jul 04, AFBCMR, dated
                 1 Sep 04 and 15 Sep 04.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 21 Sep 04.




                             RICHARD A. PETERSON
                             Panel Chair