RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01964
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  21 DEC 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Block 28, Narrative  Reason  for  Separation  (Fraudulent  Entry  Into
Military Service, Drug Abuse) on  his  DD  Form  214,  Certificate  of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty be removed and his  reenlistment
eligibility (RE) code be changed to  allow  him  to  reenter  military
service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The  reason  for  his  discharge  was  fraudulent  entry,  which   was
possession of drugs.  He made a mistake.  He would like  to  become  a
firefighter and drug abuse is really frowned on.  No one is more sorry
about this than he.

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 23 September 1998, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force
(RegAF) as an airman basic for a period of six years.

On 20 April 1999,  the  applicant's  commander  notified  him  he  was
recommending him for discharge for fraudulent entry.  The reasons  for
the discharge action were:

      a.    On or about 8 September 1998,  the  applicant  knowingly
and willfully responded “no” on Standard Form (SF) 86, Questionnaire
for National Security Positions, question 23d, “Have you  ever  been
charged with or convicted of any offense(s) related  to  alcohol  or
drugs?”  The Defense Security Service (DSS)  investigation  revealed
the applicant was arrested for possession of marijuana and  received
a citation for Unsafe Speed.

      b.    On or about 8 September 1998,  the  applicant  knowingly
and willfully responded “no” on SF 86, question 23f. “In the last  7
years, have you been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any
offense(s) not listed in response to a, b, c, d or  e  above?”   The
DSS investigation revealed the applicant was issued a  citation  for
Unsafe Speed for which he paid  a  fine  of  $150  and  attended  an
Alcohol Awareness Class.

      c.    On or about 14 September 1998, the  applicant  knowingly
and willfully responded “no” on DD Form  1966,  Record  of  Military
Processing –  Armed  Forces  of  the  United  States,  Section  III,
question 26 “Have you ever tried or used or possessed  any  narcotic
(to include heroin or cocaine, depressant  (to  include  Quaaludes),
stimulant, hallucinogen (to include LSD or  PCP),  or  cannabis  (to
include marijuana or hashish), or any mind  altering  substance  (to
include glue or paint), or anabolic steroid, except as prescribed by
a  physician?”   A  Defense  Security   Service   (DSS)   background
investigation revealed that on 9 January  1998,  the  applicant  was
arrested for possession of marijuana.

The commander advised  applicant  of  his  right  to  consult  legal
counsel and that military legal counsel had been obtained  for  him;
and to submit statements in his  own  behalf;  or  waive  the  above
rights after consulting with counsel.

On 20 April 1999, after consulting with counsel,  applicant  invoked
his right to submit a statement.

A legal review was conducted on 29 April 1999  in  which  the  staff
judge advocate recommended the applicant be discharged with an under
honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge  without  probation  and
rehabilitation.

On 4 May 1999, the discharge authority approved the discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 6 May 1999, in the grade of airman first
class with an under honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge,  in
accordance with AFI 36-3208, (fraudulent entry into military service
- drug abuse) and furnished an RE code of “2B” which  indicates  the
applicant was separated with  a  general  or  an  under  other  than
honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  Since  his  enlistment  was
considered fraudulent, his total active service was not-creditable.

On 1 June 1999, the applicant submitted a request to the  Air  Force
Discharge Review Board (AFDRB)  requesting  to  have  his  narrative
reason for discharge changed  and  his  under  honorable  conditions
(general) discharge upgraded to honorable.  They denied his  request
on 29 December 1999.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of investigation,
Washington, D.C., 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 applicant has not  submitted  any  evidence  nor
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of
his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's  file,
they believe his discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulations  of  that  time.
Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of  the  discharge
authority.  Also, he did not provide any facts to warrant  an  upgrade
of his discharge.  Based on the information and evidence provided they
recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
15 July 2005, for review and response.  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 of timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or an injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion 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 that he has suffered either
an error or an injustice.  In this respect,  the  applicant  knowingly
made two false official statements prior to his entry on active  duty.
Had the Air Force been aware of his prior  misconduct,  he  would  not
have been allowed  to  enter  the  service.   The  applicant  has  not
submitted  persuasive  evidence  that  he  did  not  understand   that
concealing
this information  was  wrong.   Furthermore,  the  applicant  has  not
presented evidence that the  discharge,  with  its  ensuing  narrative
reason and reenlistment eligibility code, was not consistent with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge authority and
was not within the discretion of the discharge authority.   Therefore,
in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,  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 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-
2005-01964 in  Executive  Session  on  14  September  2005  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member
                       Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jun 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Jul 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jul 05.




                                        KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                        Panel Chair