RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03282
                                       INDEX CODE:  110.02
                                             COUNSEL: MR. NORMAN R.  ZAMBONI
                                        HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2.  His DD Form 214 be amended by removing his  separation  code  of  “JKK”,
reentry  code  of  “2B”  (Separated  with  a  general  or  under-other-than-
honorable conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge)  and  the  “misconduct”  narrative
reason for separation.

3.  His Letter Of Reprimand (LOR) and  administrative  separation  documents
be removed from his Official Military Personnel Record.

4.  He be awarded back pay for the period  of  his  enlistment  he  was  not
allowed to complete.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On behalf of his client, counsel contends that the  applicant  was  unjustly
discharged and that this  is  case  of  “guilty  by  association.”   Counsel
requests  that  the  Board  consider  the  voluminous  character  references
submitted which  establish  the  applicant’s  excellent  character  and  his
reputation as a truthful person.  The applicant  is  an  honest  and  decent
young man from Lake Jackson, Texas.  He comes  from  a  good  home  and  was
taught  virtuous  values.   The  character  references  do  not  describe  a
criminal or someone who buys or uses a drug  like  Ecstasy.   Counsel  urges
the Board to read these character references and ask whether  the  applicant
deserves to carry the stigma of a less than honorable discharge.

In support of the applicant’s submission, counsel  provides  copies  of  the
OSI  Report,  character  affidavits  and   the   administrative   separation
documents.  A copy of the submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s records appear to be lost.  The following is the only  known
information pertaining to the applicant's service  and  was  extracted  from
the partially reconstructed  record  and  from  documents  provided  by  the
applicant.

On 18 August 1999, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  in  the
grade of airman basic (E-1) for a  period  of  six  years  as  a  guaranteed
training enlistee for training in Air Force Specialty  (AFS)  1C231  (Combat
Control Apprentice).  He was progressively promoted to the grade  of  airman
first class (E-3) with a date of rank of 1 October  1999  and  an  effective
date of 18 February  2000.   He  received  an  Enlisted  Performance  Report
closing 15  April  2001,  in  which  the  overall  evaluation  was  4.   The
commander nonconcurred and downgraded the rating to a 1.

Pursuant  to  AFPC/JA’s  request,  the  USAFE  Staff  Judge  Advocate  (SJA)
provided a copy of the legal review of the administrative discharge  action.
 The SJA review indicates that the unit commander offered the  applicant  an
Article 15 for possession of Ecstasy on  7  February  2001.   The  applicant
turned down  the  Article  15  and  the  commander  preferred  court-martial
charges against the applicant for possession of Ecstasy.  During this  time,
the USAFE SJA states, that another member of the unit  was  convicted  by  a
general court-martial for both use  and  possession  of  Ecstasy.   However,
that member’s sentence did  not  include  a  Bad  Conduct  Discharge  (BCD).
Concluding that the applicant was unlikely to receive a BCD  at  trial,  the
commander gave the applicant a letter of reprimand and  initiated  discharge
action (see Exhibit D).

On 2 April 2001, the applicant received an LOR for wrongfully  possessing  3
or 4 Ecstasy, a Schedule I controlled substance.

On 2 May 2001, the applicant’s  commander  initiated  discharge  proceedings
against him under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,  paragraph  5-54,  drug
abuse.  The applicant was notified of  his  commander’s  recommendation  and
that a general discharge was being  recommended.   He  was  advised  of  his
rights. He consulted with counsel and elected to submit  statements  in  his
own behalf.  In a legal review of the discharge case file, the  staff  judge
advocate found it legally sufficient and recommended that he  be  discharged
from the Air Force  with  a  general  discharge.   The  discharge  authority
directed that he be discharged with a  general  under  honorable  conditions
discharge.  Subsequently, on 22 June  2001,  the  applicant  was  discharged
under the provisions of AFI 36-3208  (Misconduct)  and  received  a  General
(Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.  He served 1 year, 10 months, and  4
days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSFOC recommends the application be denied.  DPSFOC  states  that  the
LOR is used to reprove, correct and instruct subordinates  who  depart  from
acceptable norms of conduct or behavior, on or off duty, and helps  maintain
established Air Force standards of conduct or behavior.   An  airman  has  3
duty days upon receipt to submit rebuttal  documents  for  consideration  by
the  initiator.   It  is  DPSFOC’s  opinion  that  the  commander  correctly
administered the LOR.  The AFPC/DPSFOC evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS states  that  based
upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  DPPRS
further states that the applicant has not  provided  any  new  evidence  or
identified  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge
processing.  The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA recommends the application be denied.  JA states  that  contrary  to
the counsel’s opinion of the airman who alleges he  sold  the  drug  to  the
applicant, the information provided by this airman proved  to  be  reliable.
The applicant’s commander offered not to  pursue  discharge  action  if  the
applicant passed a polygraph.  The applicant refused.  JA  states  that  the
commander was left with what he viewed as trustworthy information  from  the
airman  and  no  information  from  the  applicant  other   than   character
references, the commander went forward  with  the  discharge.   It  is  JA’s
opinion that the commander and the  separation  authority  discharged  their
duties in good faith and carefully considered all the evidence in the  case.
 The AFPC/JA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 19 March 2004, copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to
the applicant and counsel for review and comment.  As of this  date,  this
office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error  or  injustice  to  warrant  upgrading  the  applicant’s
general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable,  changing  his
separation and reentry codes  and  the  narrative  reason  for  separation,
removing his Letter of Reprimand and administrative  separation  documents,
and awarding of back pay for the  period  of  his  enlistment  he  was  not
allowed to complete.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and
the applicant’s submission, we are not  persuaded  he  was  erroneously  or
unjustly discharged.  In cases of this  nature,  we  are  not  inclined  to
disturb the discretionary judgments of commanding officers in  the  absence
of a strong showing of abuse of authority.  We have no such  showing  here.
Other than the assertions of the applicant and his counsel, we have seen no
evidence indicating the information in the available  discharge  case  file
was erroneous, his substantial rights  were  violated,  or  his  commanders
abused their discretionary authority.  Furthermore, the applicant  has  not
provided any new evidence or  information  unavailable  to  his  commanders
during his discharge proceedings.  Counsel’s assertions have been addressed
by the appropriate Air Force offices and have  not  been  rebutted  by  the
applicant.  Therefore, in view of the above, we find no basis upon which to
favorably consider this application.

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 issues involved.  Therefore,  the  request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________

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 23 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
            Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
            Mrs. Barbara R. Murray, Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-2003-03282
was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Sep 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Feb 04.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 15 Mar 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Mar 04.



                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                             Chair