RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1998-02167
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  11 JUNE 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be changed to  a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was given the UOTHC discharge  because  he  was  caught  with  two  small
marijuana joints.  He was 17 years old when he enlisted  in  the  Air  Force
and 19 years old when discharged.  His record indicates he  was  reprimanded
for speeding, failing room inspection, and writing a  bad  check  in  error.
He is now 43 years old with two children and has had  no  trouble  with  the
law since his discharge.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 May 1979 in the  grade
of airman basic for a period of four years.

On 14 November 1980, the applicant was notified of  his  commander's  intent
to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the  following:   he  did,  at
Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, on or about 14 November 1980, violate a  lawful
regulation, to wit:  Table 1-1, Line  16,  by  having  his  mustache  extend
beyond the limits of the corner of the mouth;  Figure  7-2,  by  having  his
grade insignas not properly entered, and Paragraph  1-12b(1)(d),  by  having
keys hanging from his uniform, in violation of the Uniform Code of  Military
Justice (UCMJ), Article 92.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult  legal  counsel,
to demand trial by court-martial and  accept  nonjudical  proceedings  under
Article 15, UCMJ, submit statements in his own behalf, or waive  his  rights
after consulting with counsel.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to a trial  by
court-martial, to make an oral presentation, and did not  submit  a  written
presentation.

He was found guilty by his commander who imposed the  following  punishment:
reduction in grade from airman first class to airman basic with a  new  date
of rank (DOR) of 14 November 1980, ordered to forfeit $224.00 per month  for
two months, and ordered to perform 30 days’  correctional  custody  but  the
execution of the portion of the  punishment  which  provided  for  30  days’
correctional custody was suspended until 8 May 1981, at which  time,  unless
the suspension was sooner vacated, it  would  be  remitted  without  further
action.

The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 19 November 1980, the applicant was notified of  his  commander's  intent
to initiate discharge action against  him  for  Frequent  Involvement  of  a
Discreditable Nature with Civil or Military  Authorities,  and  Drug  Abuse.
The specific reasons follows:

      Letter of Reprimand (LOR), violation of Article 134, UCMJ,  possession
of marijuana, dated 31 August 1979.

      AF Form 1569, Incident/Complaint Report with  the  Office  of  Special
Investigation (OSI) statement, dated 11 November 1980.

      LOR, violation of Articles 92 and 134, UCMJ, possession of  marijuana,
dated 13 November 1980.

      AF Form 3070, Article 15, dated 14 November 1980.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that  the
applicant  be  furnished  a  UOTCH  discharge.   He  had  not,  nor  to  his
knowledge, had any member of his  staff  promised,  or,  by  implication  or
representation, led the applicant to believe that he would receive a  better
character of discharge than the worst authorized.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to present his case  before
an  administrative  discharge  board,  consult  legal  counsel  and   submit
statements in his own behalf; or waive the  above  rights  after  consulting
with counsel.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to  a  hearing
before an administrative discharge board and to  submit  statements  in  his
own behalf.

On 14 January 1981, the Staff Judge  Advocate  recommended  the  applicant’s
waiver be accepted and that he be  discharged  under  other  than  honorable
conditions without probation and rehabilitation.

The discharge authority approved the applicant’s UOTHC discharge.

The applicant was discharged on 20 January 1981,  in  the  grade  of  airman
basic with an under  other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge,
under the provisions of AFM 39-12, (Drug Abuse - Board Waiver).   He  served
1 year, 8 months, and 3 days of total active military service.

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 recommended denial indicating based on the documentation on  file
in the master personnel  records  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation.   The
discharge was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge  authority.   The
applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices
which  occurred  in  the  discharge  processing.   He  provided   no   facts
warranting a change to his character of service.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 22 April 2005, 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.

On 9 May 2005, the Board staff requested the applicant provide  post-service
documentation within 20 days (Exhibit F).  As of this  date,  the  applicant
has not responded.

On 19 May 2005, the Board staff provided the applicant  the  opportunity  to
respond to the FBI report within 20 days (Exhibit G).  As of this date,  the
applicant has not responded.

_________________________________________________________________






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  an  error  or  injustice.   The  Board  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;  however,
the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the  Air  Force  and
adopts its 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.  Absent evidence to  the  contrary,
the Board presumes responsible officials applied  appropriate  standards  in
effecting the separation, and the Board does not  find  persuasive  evidence
that pertinent regulations were violated or the applicant was  not  afforded
all the rights to which entitled at the time of  discharge.   Therefore,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.    Although the applicant  did  not  specifically  request  consideration
based  on  clemency,  we  also  find  insufficient  evidence  to  warrant  a
recommendation the discharge be upgraded on that basis.   In  this  respect,
contrary  to  the  applicant’s  assertions   concerning   his   post-service
behavior,  we  note  the  applicant’s  continued  misconduct  following  his
discharge  as  evidenced  by  the  FBI  report.   Further,  when  given  the
opportunity to provide information  regarding  his  post-service  activities
and accomplishments, he failed to do so.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in  Executive
Session on 28 June 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member
                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member

The following documentary  evidence  was  considered  pertaining  to  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-1998-02167:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 February 2005, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 April 2005.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 April 2005.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 May 2005, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 May 2005, w/atch.




                       CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
                       Panel Chair