RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01296
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  20 OCTOBER 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His misconduct while in the Air Force was a  one-time  offense  and  he  has
since matured.  He has no other blemishes on his record  and  while  in  the
service his  overall  ratings  on  his  airman  performance  reports  (APRs)
reflected ratings of 9.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 6 April 1982, the applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four years.

On 3 March 1986, the applicant was notified of  his  commander's  intent  to
initiate discharge action against him for Commission of a  Serious  Offense.
The specific reasons follow:

        a. Memorandum for Record, dated  23  December  1985,  by  the  first
sergeant documenting his random selection  to  provide  the  clinic  with  a
urine sample.

        b. Results of Drug Urinalysis Testing, dated 11 February 1986,  from
the base drug abuse  monitor,  indicated  the  urine  sample  the  applicant
provided on 23 December 1985 tested positive for  THC  (tetrahydrocannabinol
- active component in marijuana).

        c. AF Form 2731,  dated  12  February  1986,  notification  of  drug
abuse, wherein he was referred to social actions for evaluation in the  drug
abuse rehabilitation program.

        d. AF Form 3070, dated 21 February 1986, nonjudicial  punishment  by
the commander for violating Article 112a, Uniform Code of  Military  Justice
(UCMJ), by wrongfully using marijuana.  He was reduced in  grade  to  airman
first class, ordered to forfeit $100.00, and ordered to perform 30  days  of
extra duty.  His  marijuana  use  was  discovered  after  random  urinalysis
testing indicated THC content.

The commander indicated in his  recommendation  for  discharge  action  that
before recommending the discharge, the applicant was counseled  formally  by
the squadron staff and social actions personnel.  He  further  indicated  he
did not recommend probation and rehabilitation according to chapter 7.   The
applicant’s actions had proven him unfit for further military service.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult  legal  counsel,
to  submit  statements  in  his  own  behalf,  or  waive  his  rights  after
consulting with counsel.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant  waived  his  right  to  submit
statements in his own behalf.

The Staff Judge Advocate recommended the applicant be  discharged  from  the
Air Force for misconduct, drug abuse, with a general discharge  certificate,
without probation and rehabilitation.

On 5 March 1986, the discharge authority approved  the  applicant’s  general
discharge.

The applicant was discharged on 6 March 1986, in the grade of  airman  first
class with a general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge,  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Drug Abuse).  He served  3  years,  11
months, and 1 day of total active military service.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, was unable to identify with arrest record on  the
basis of information furnished 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
that 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 29 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 10 May 2005, the  Board  staff  requested  the  applicant  provide  post-
service documentation within 20 days (Exhibit  F).   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, 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 that the discharge be upgraded on that basis.

_________________________________________________________________




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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2005-
01296 in Executive Session on 16 June 2005, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Martha J. Evans, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
                 Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 April 2005.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Negative FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 April 2005.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 April 2005.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 May 2005, w/atch.




                       MARTHA J. EVANS
                       Panel Chair