RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02295
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated to active duty or his general (under honorable  conditions)
discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has been unjustly discharged from the Air Force.  He was coerced  by  the
Office of Special  Investigation  (OSI)  into  writing  a  false  statement,
thereby inadvertently incriminating himself and succumbing to  a  threat  of
court-martial.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  16  July  2002,  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of six years.

On 20 October 2003, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following:  He,  did,  within
the state of California, between on or about 7 August 2003 and on  or  about
9 August 2003, on divers occasions, wrongfully use marijuana.

On 27 October 2003, after consulting  with  counsel,  applicant  waived  his
right to a trial by  court-martial,  requested  a  personal  appearance  and
submitted a written presentation.

On 28 October 2003, he was found guilty by his  commander  who  imposed  the
following punishment:  Reduction to the grade of airman  basic  from  airman
first class, with a new date of rank (DOR) of 28 October 2003, and  45  days
extra duty.

The applicant did not appeal the punishment.  The Article 15  was  filed  in
his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 11 December 2003, the applicant was notified of  his  commander's  intent
to initiate discharge action against him for Misconduct,  Drug  Abuse.   The
specific reason was the Article 15 dated 20 October 2003.

The commander indicated in his  recommendation  for  discharge  action  that
probation and rehabilitation were  not  authorized  for  drug  abuse  cases,
pursuant to AFI 36-3208, Chapter 7, Paragraph 7.2.6.   Due  to  the  serious
nature of the offense committed, the  applicant’s  continued  service  would
have been detrimental to the overall mission  of  his  squadron  and  Travis
AFB.  The commander believed the discharge to be appropriate.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult  legal  counsel,
submit statements in his own behalf, or waive his  rights  after  consulting
with counsel.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant  submitted  statements  in  his
own behalf.

On 24 December 2003, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended the  applicant  be
discharged  with  service  characterized   as   general   (under   honorable
conditions) without  probation  and  rehabilitation  and  the  applicant  be
barred from Travis AFB.

On 31 December  2003,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the  applicant’s
general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

On 14 January 2004, the applicant was discharged  in  the  grade  of  airman
basic, with service characterized as general (under  honorable  conditions),
under the provisions of AFI 36-3208  (Misconduct).   He  served  1  year,  5
months, and 29 days of total active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They indicated based  on  the  documentation
on file in the applicant’s records, his discharge was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation.   The
discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 13 August 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response within 30  days.   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 timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice warranting the  applicant  be  reinstated
to active  duty  or  his  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge
upgraded to an honorable.   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 conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of
an error  or  injustice.   The  applicant  has  failed  to  demonstrate  the
commander exceeded his  authority  or  the  reason  for  the  discharge  was
inaccurate or unwarranted.  The applicant’s  contention  regarding  coercion
by the OSI is noted;  however,  the  Board  believes  responsible  officials
applied appropriate standards in effecting the  separation,  and  the  Board
does not find  persuasive  evidence  in  which  pertinent  regulations  were
violated or the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which  entitled
at the time of discharge.  Therefore, in the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief
sought.

4.    The applicant's case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not  been
shown that a personal appearance with or  without  counsel  will  materially
add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore,  the  request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice; the application was denied without  a
personal appearance; and 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-
02295 in Executive Session on 21 October 2004, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
                  Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 April 2004, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 August 2004.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 August 2004.




                       RICHARD A. PETERSON
                       Panel Chair