RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03082
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY DUE DATE:  3 FEBRUARY 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was unjust because it was based on statements  by  two  airmen
convicted of drug use.   His  urinalysis  test  results  were  negative  for
illegal narcotics.  His commander based his separation solely  on  suspicion
of criminal activity and not on written medical documents.  He works a  full
time job, attends school full time, has four sons, and still finds  time  to
support our troops.

In support  of  the  application,  the  applicant  submits  a  copy  of  his
separation document (DD 214).  The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 February 1995, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  at  the
age of 19 in the grade of airman basic  (E-1)  for  a  period  of  four  (4)
years.  After his successful completion of basic military  training  school,
he was assigned to duties as a Ground Radio Communications Helper.   He  was
promoted to the grade of Airman (E-2) effective and with a date of  rank  of
1 August 1995.

On 14 July 1995, it was determined the applicant violated  Mississippi  Code
67-3-70, by wrongfully possessing  and  consuming  alcohol  while  under  21
years of age.  For this incident, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

On 26 July 1995, the applicant’s Military  Training  Manager  counseled  him
for failing his room inspection.

On 13 September 1995,  he  was  counseled  for  failing  to  sign  into  his
appointed place of duty.

On 16 September 1995, it was reported he violated Mississippi  Code  67-3-70
by wrongfully possessing and consuming alcohol while under 21 years of  age.
 For this incident, he received an LOR.

On 6  November  1995,  the  applicant’s  commander  issued  an  LOR  to  the
applicant based on the allegation that, on or  about  the  last  weekend  of
September 1995, he was observed smoking marijuana by other  members  of  the
squadron.  In his response to the LOR, the applicant  denied  drug  use  and
requested the commander consider the credibility of the accusers  in  making
his decision about the worth of his service and his future in  the  service.
He pointed to the urinalysis he had undergone within a day  or  two  of  the
time he was accused of using the illegal substance (2 October  1995),  which
had been reported negative by the NCOIC of the Drug Testing Program.

On 29 November 1995, the applicant’s commander notified  him  that  she  was
recommending he be discharged from the Air Force  under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-3208 for drug abuse.  The applicant was advised of  his  rights,  and
after consulting military legal counsel submitted a  statement  on  his  own
behalf.  On 8 December 1995, a legal review of the discharge  case  file  by
the deputy staff judge  advocate  found  the  file  legally  sufficient  and
recommended the applicant be discharged  with  a  general  (under  honorable
conditions)   discharge   without   the   opportunity   for   probation   or
rehabilitation.  The discharge authority  approved  the  recommendation  for
discharge and directed he be given a general  (under  honorable  conditions)
discharge without the opportunity for probation or rehabilitation.   He  had
served 10 months and 14 days on active duty.

On 25 October 2000, the former member submitted an application  to  the  Air
Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)  requesting  his   General   (Under
Honorable  Conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to  honorable.   The  AFDRB
determined that  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation,  and  was  within  the
discretion  of  the  discharge  authority.   AFDRB  concluded  no  legal  or
equitable basis for upgrade of discharge exists (Exhibit B).

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation  (FBI)
provided a copy of an  investigative  report  pertaining  to  the  applicant
(Identification Record No. 660226DB1 which is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  that   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, and within the discretion of the discharge  authority.
 DPPRS concludes the applicant did not submit any evidence or  identify  any
errors or  injustices  that  occurred  during  the  discharge  process,  and
provided  no  facts  warranting  an  upgrade  of  his  discharge.    DPPRS’s
evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment on 8 October 2004.  On 26 October 2004,  a  copy  of  the
Federal  Bureau  of  Investigations  (FBI)  report  was  forwarded  to   the
applicant (Exhibit D).  As  of  this  date,  this  office  has  received  no
response to any of the aforementioned correspondence (Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

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.  After  careful  consideration  of
the available evidence, we found no indication that  the  actions  taken  to
effect his discharge were improper or contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the
governing regulations in effect at  the  time.   We  noted  the  applicant’s
assertions concerning a negative urinalysis.  However, this factor,  in  and
by  itself,  does  not  warrant  a  finding  the  applicant  was  improperly
discharged since it is possible the there was THC in the  applicant’s  urine
but not at the DOD approved level for a confirmed  positive.   In  cases  of
this nature, we are not inclined to disturb the discretionary  judgments  of
commanding officers, who are closer to events, in the absence  of  a  strong
showing of abuse of discretionary authority.  We have no such showing  here.
 Based on witness statements, the applicant was reprimanded  for  drug  use.
At that time, he raised the same allegations he  makes  before  this  Board.
His commander, who was privy to all  the  relevant  information,  determined
that he had used drugs and initiated  administrative  discharge  proceedings
against the applicant.  The case file was found legally sufficient  and,  in
an independent review, the discharge  authority  determined  the  separation
should be approved.  The applicant has provided no evidence that would  lead
us to believe his substantial rights were violated or his commanders  abused
their discretionary authority.  We therefore  have  no  basis  to  find  his
discharge was  erroneous  or  unjust  at  the  time  it  was  effected.   In
addition, in view of the contents of the FBI Identification  Record  we  are
not  persuaded  that  the  characterization  of  the  applicant’s  discharge
warrants an upgrade to honorable on the basis of clemency.  In view  of  the
above, the applicant’s request is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable 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-
01235 in Executive Session on 7 April 2005 under the provisions of  AFI  37-
2603:

            Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
            Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Member
            Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Panel Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Sep 2004.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Oct 2004.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 2004.
              Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Oct 2004.
      Exhibit E.  FBI Report.




      RICHARD A. PETERSON
      Panel Chair