RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01154
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  07 OCTOBER 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable and the narrative reason for his separation be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received a general discharge  under  honorable  conditions  with  a
narrative reason for separation of misconduct-drug  abuse  because  he
failed a urinalysis.   After  basic  training  he  entered  pararescue
training and all went  well  until  he  was  disqualified  because  he
admitted to marijuana use on a few occasions.

The following are reasons he thinks it is in the interest  of  justice
that his discharge be corrected:

- He wanted to test again at his own expense but was not allowed.

- Urine tests have a record of being mishandled, inaccurate,  and  not
always precise.

- He was given an Article 15 for wrongful use  of  marijuana  in  Dade
County.  He doesn’t understand how failing a urine test can  determine
that he used marijuana in Dade County.  He never had any marijuana  in
his possession as evidence for that accusation.

- He was never given the opportunity to  clear  himself  by  retesting
under a probation period.  It was as if there was no hope of innocence
in him, he had done this before, he was guilty, and  he  would  do  it
again!

- He was reduced in rank from senior airman to airman first class  and
assigned to different barracks.  He was given all kinds of details  on
base, and forced to  undergo  interrogating/repetitive  questionnaires
like some kind of criminal.

-  Being  disqualified  for  pararescue  because  of  prior  marijuana
admission.  This predetermined him as unfit  for  the  Air  Force  and
crushed his sense of dignity.  He wonders if this had any influence on
his discharge.

- Giving him a discharge under honorable conditions,  forcing  him  to
turn in all his uniforms, and ordering him off base with a restraining
order hardly seemed like honorable conditions to him.

- He has never given anyone a reason in his entire life  to  think  of
him as a misbehaving drug abuser.  He had no record of  such  offenses
and should have been allowed to retest.  He had and has  a  very  good
record.

He has since high school to the  present  been  dedicated  to  fitness
through bodybuilding/nutrition, exercise, etc.  He also has  a  strong
Christian faith that steers him from abusive living habits.

Finally, what prompted him to apply for a discharge  correction  after
all these years is an offer to buy back military time from his present
employer of 19 years.  He has a good reputation with this company  and
holds a prestigious title of Senior Comm/Control technician.  He  does
not want to destroy their opinion of him and  possibly  be  disallowed
the opportunity to buy back time toward an earlier retirement with his
employer.

In support of the appeal, he submits a personal statement, a  copy  of
his DD Form 214, a copy of his discharge  certificate,  a  copy  of  a
medical record, a copy of an order not to reenter Homestead AFB, and a
letter  from  the  MWRA  Retirement  System.    Applicant's   complete
submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27 October 1982  for  a
period of four years.  He was promoted to airman  first  class  on  27
October 1983 and senior airman on 27 October 1985.  He  received  four
Airman Performance Reports closing 26 October 1983, 26  October  1984,
23  February  1985,  and  23  February  1986,  in  which  the  overall
evaluations were “9,” “7,” “8,” and “5.”

On 26 September 1985, he received a Letter of  Reprimand  for  failing
dormitory room inspection.

On 29 January 1986, the applicant’s  commander  was  notified  that  a
urine specimen provided by  the  applicant  on  17  December  1985  in
connection with inspection testing was confirmed  laboratory  positive
for marijuana.  On  10  February  1986,  his  commander  notified  the
applicant of his intent to impose  nonjudicial  punishment  him  under
Article 15, UCMJ.   After  consulting  legal  counsel,  the  applicant
waived his  right  to  demand  trial  by  court-martial,  requested  a
personal appearance before the commander, and elected not to submit  a
written  presentation  for  review.   On  18  February   1986,   after
considering the matters presented  by  the  applicant,  the  commander
determined he had committed the alleged offense and imposed punishment
on the applicant.  The applicant was reduced in grade to airman  first
class.  The applicant elected not to appeal the punishment.

On 5 March 1986,  applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of  AFR
39-10, Section H paragraph 5-49c, (drug  abuse).   The  commander  was
recommending applicant receive an under honorable conditions (general)
discharge based on the fact that he did on or about 17 December  1985,
wrongfully use marijuana.

Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification  of  discharge  and
after  consulting  with  legal  counsel,  the  applicant  submitted  a
statement  in  his  own  behalf  in  which,  among  other  things,  he
summarized his service and stated he did desire to be discharged  from
the Air Force.  The base legal office reviewed the case file and found
it legally sufficient to support separation with  an  under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge without probation  and  rehabilitation.
The discharge authority approved  the  separation  and  directed  that
applicant be discharged with an under honorable  conditions  (general)
discharge.

Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 13 March 1986 because of
misconduct - drug abuse, with an under honorable conditions  (general)
discharge.  He had served 3 years, 4 months  and  17  days  on  active
duty.

The Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)  denied  applicant’s
request for upgrade of discharge to honorable and change of reason for
discharge on 4 November 1987 (Exhibit B).

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg,  West  Virginia,  indicated  on  the  basis  of  the  data
furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the discharge was consistent with the procedural and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.   The  discharge
was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Therefore, they
recommend denial of applicant’s request (see Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________

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.  On 4 May  2005,
the applicant was invited to provide  information  pertaining  to  his
activities since leaving the service (Exhibit E).

On 15 May 2005, applicant provided a letter explaining his  activities
since leaving the service.  Immediately after  his  discharge  he  was
employed with a Fence Company full-time in R---, MA until November  of
1987.  On 9 November 1987, he was hired as a skilled laborer with  the
Massachusetts Water Resources  Authority,  and  since  then  has  been
promoted five times in pay grade/job title to his present position  of
Senior SCADA technician (controls and communication).  His job  skills
include anything from mounting and aligning antennas at  100  feet  or
more to calibrating radio transmitters,  fiber  optics,  data  modems,
water flow meters, or configuring associated devices, etc.

He has been an active member of the Assembly of  God  Church  in  R---
from 1986 to about 1992.  Activities  included  involvement  with  the
singles ministry, and the life support group.  He moved to  W---,  MA,
bought a house and got married.

He now lives with his wife  and  three  sons.   His  wife  conducts  a
daycare out of an addition of his house that  he  had  built  for  her
business.

A copy of applicant’s  response,  with  attachments,  including  three
character references, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  The  applicant’s  discharge  had
its basis in a positive urinalysis for THC.  We have noted the  issues
raised in this appeal are similar to those considered by the AFDRB  in
1987.  At this late date, if the applicant requested a retest  of  his
sample, evidence of such a request is no longer  in  the  record.   In
cases of this nature, in the absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,
there is a presumption of regularity with respect to actions taken  by
military administrators.  The record shows  the  applicant’s  specimen
tested positive, he was offered and accepted nonjudicial  proceedings,
and waived his right to  demand  trial  by  court-martial,  where  the
standard of proof would have been “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  As  to
the  discharge  proceedings,  other  than  his  own  assertions,   the
applicant has provided no evidence that would lead us to  believe  the
information in his  discharge  case  file  was  in  error,  i.e.,  his
specimen  was  improperly  processed  or  the  positive   result   was
erroneous, his substantial rights were  violated,  or  his  commanders
abused their discretionary authority.  We have  reviewed  the  limited
evidence  the  applicant  provided  pertaining  to  his   post-service
activities.  Without more expansive  and  detailed  evidence  of  this
nature, we are not inclined to exercise clemency  in  the  form  of  a
fully honorable discharge in this case.  Accordingly, 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 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 14 June 2005, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
                 Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Mar 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 Apr 05.
      Exhibit E. Letters, SAF/MRBR and AFBCMR, dated 22 Apr 05
                       and 4 May 05.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 15 May 05, w/atchs.




                             MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                             Panel Chair