RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01855

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After a vehicle accident he was given a drug test which was  initially
negative and then determined to be positive thirty minutes  later.  He
received no JAG representation during this procedure.

Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic for
a period of 4 years on 30 October 1979 and progressed to the grade  of
sergeant.

On 27 June  1984,  the  applicant’s  commander  notified  him  he  was
recommending him for  discharge  because  of  his  minor  disciplinary
infractions.  The  commander  was  recommending  applicant  receive  a
general (under honor conditions) discharge based on the following: (1)
on or about 7 April  1984,  he  was  administered  a  command-directed
urinalysis test, which tested positive THC; (2)  on  1  May  1984,  he
received a Letter of Reprimand for being 90 days delinquent on his NCO
Club bill; (3) on 30 April 1984, he received a Letter of Reprimand for
operating a government vehicle and drove off the  road  and  struck  a
wooden pole; (4) on 22 April 1984, he received a Letter  of  Reprimand
for trying to leave the base after being advised that everyone was  to
go into shelters due to a Global Shield  Exercise;  (5)  on  30  March
1984, he received Letter of Reprimand for failure to report  for  duty
at the prescribed time; (6) on 11 February 1984, he received a  Letter
of Reprimand for violating AFR 35-10;  (7)  on  8  December  1983,  he
received a Letter of Reprimand for sleeping on post; (8)  on  21  July
1983, he received a Letter of Counseling for  failure  to  report  for
duty at the prescribed time.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the  notification  of  discharge
and after consulting with legal counsel submitted  statements  in  his
own behalf. The base legal office  reviewed  the  case  and  found  it
legally sufficient to support  separation  and  recommended  applicant
receives  a  general  (under  honor  conditions)   discharge   without
probation and rehabilitation. The  discharge  authority  approved  the
separation and directed the applicant be  discharged  with  a  general
(under   honor   conditions)   discharge   without    probation    and
rehabilitation.

On 22 September 1982, he was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-
12, (misconduct-pattern of minor disciplinary  infractions)  from  the
Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions)  discharge.   He
served 5 years, 1 month and 5 days of total active duty service.

On 19 August 1987, AFDRB denied the applicant’s  request  for  upgrade
and concluded that the discharge was consistent  with  the  procedural
and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation,  was  within
the discretion of  the  discharge  authority  and  the  applicant  was
provided full administrative due process.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and states based upon the  documentation
in the file; the discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.   The  applicant
did not submit any new 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.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 8 July 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,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse that failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice. The records reflect  that  the
commander initiated administrative actions  based  on  information  he
determined to be reliable and the administrative actions taken  appear
to have been 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, and since we find no
abuse of that authority, we find no reason to overturn the commander’s
decision.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of
the Air Force and adopt its rationale as the basis  for  our  decision
that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of showing that he
suffered either an error or an injustice. In view  of  the  above,  we
find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
01855 in Executive Session on 9 August 2005, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
                 Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Jul 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Jul 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Jul 05.





      LAURENCE M. GRONER
      Panel Chair