RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS



IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00120

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  be
upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge appeared to be discriminatory. His records showed a good
airman.  His enlistment was accepted with the knowledge  that  he  did
use pot (marijuana). His recruiter accepted his use of  marijuana.  He
has not been in any trouble since his discharge. He feels the military
is responsible for his downfall. He volunteered after the  dismal  act
of leaving Vietnam.  He  gave  his  service  voluntarily--he  deserves
better.

In support of his  application,  applicant  submits  a  DD  Form  293,
Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal  from  the  Armed
Forces of the United States.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
6 October 1975. He was progressively promoted to the  grade  of  staff
sergeant.

On 22 July 1985, applicant's commander recommended discharge from  the
Air Force  due  to  misconduct  -  drug  abuse.   The  basis  for  the
commander’s recommendation was that on  or  about  14  December  1984,
applicant wrongfully used marijuana.

On  30  July  1985,  the  applicant  acknowledged   receipt   of   the
notification of discharge and denied using marijuana.

On 1 November 1985, the applicant was notified that his case would  be
presented to a discharge board convening on 4 November 1985. Applicant
acknowledged receipt of the notification and requested a delay.

On 20 November 1985, board officers convened under the  provisions  of
AFR 39-10 to determine whether  the  applicant  should  be  discharged
prior to the expiration of his term of service because of  misconduct.
The  board  recommended  that  applicant  be  discharged  because   of
misconduct with an under than honorable conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge
with probation and rehabilitation.  The base legal office reviewed the
administrative discharge proceedings and found them legally sufficient
and recommended  applicant  be  discharged  with  an  UOTHC  discharge
without probation and rehabilitation. The discharge authority approved
separation and directed the applicant  be  discharged  with  an  UOTHC
discharge.

On 11 February 1986, the applicant was discharged under the provisions
of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen (misconduct  -  drug
abuse), with an UOTHC discharge. He served 10 years, 4  months  and  7
days of total active military service.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated they were unable to identify with
an arrest record on the basis of the information furnished  -  Exhibit
C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial based on the documentation  on  file  in
the  master  personnel  records.   They  believe  the  discharge   was
consistent with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge regulation and the discharge was within  the  discretion  of
the discharge authority.  They indicate the applicant did  not  submit
any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the
discharge processing and he provided no facts warranting a  change  to
his character of service.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 4 March 2005, for review and comment 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 not timely filed; however, the Board excused
the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice warranting an  upgrade  in  his
discharge.  The records reflect the commander initiated administrative
actions based on information he determined to  be  reliable  and  that
administrative actions were properly accomplished.  The applicant  was
afforded all rights granted by statute and  regulation.   We  are  not
persuaded by the evidence presented  that  the  commander  abused  his
discretionary authority when he initiated the discharge  action.   The
only other basis upon which to recommend an upgrade of  his  discharge
would  be  clemency.   However,  applicant  has  failed   to   provide
documentation pertaining to  his  post  service  conduct.   Should  he
provide statements from community leaders and acquaintances  attesting
to his good character and reputation and other evidence of  successful
post-service rehabilitation, this  Board  will  reconsider  this  case
based on  the  new  evidence.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  this
documentation, 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 a 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 Docket  Number  BC-2005-
00120 in Executive Session on 9 June 2005, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

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

                 Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report, dated 17 May 2005.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Feb 05.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Mar 05.


      RICHARD A. PETERSON
      Panel Chair