RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01592
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 November 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He knew someone with the  same  situation  had  been  given  a  second
chance.  His name and rank was  staff  sergeant  J---  and  they  were
treated differently.

At the time, he did not think it would affect his civilian status.  He
does get  VA  benefits,  but,  he  needs  an  upgrade  for  employment
purposes.

Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 25 May 83 for a  period
of six years.  On 23 Apr 86, he was notified by his commander that  he
was recommending  he  be  separated  from  the  Air  Force  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-10,  Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen,  for
misconduct-drug  abuse.   Specifically,  he  submitted   a   commander
directed urinalysis specimen on 13 Feb 86, which tested  positive  for
wrongful use of marijuana for which he received a Letter of  Reprimand
(LOR) on 31 Mar 86.    He acknowledged receipt of the notification and
after consulting with legal counsel submitted statements  in  his  own
behalf.  The base legal office reviewed the  case,  found  it  legally
sufficient  and  recommended  separation  with  an   under   honorable
conditions (general) discharge without probation  and  rehabilitation.
The discharge authority  approved  the  separation  and  directed  his
separation.  He was separated on 5 Jun 86.  He had served 2  years,  7
months and 12 days on active duty.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report  which  is
attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  the   discharge   was
consistent with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge regulation and was within the discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.  The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify  any
error in his discharge processing.  He provided no facts warranting  a
change to his  character  of  service.   In  addition,  the  following
derogatory information is on file in his Master Personnel Records:  He
received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for being 60 days delinquent  on
a club account;  he  received  two  LORs  for  being  involved  in  an
affray/injuries and falling asleep while on duty, on two occasions; he
was overdue on his Deferred Payment Plan Payments; he was notified  of
the indebtedness against his pay account from club charges  and  dues;
he received a pay  adjustment  authorization  notice;  he  received  a
Statement  Letter  of  non-payment  of  personal  debts;  he  received
financial  counseling;  on  two  occasions,  he  received  notices  of
dishonored checks; and on four occasions, he received notices from F---
 E--- D--- C--- for payment due.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant is not refuting or condoning any of  the  facts  in  his
record and he takes full  responsibility.   However,  there  are  some
circumstances he feels the Board should take into consideration.

As a firefighter and deploying to Korea from time to time, his  spouse
had a lot of time on her hands.  She repeatedly put him into financial
situations.  He could not control her spending  habits  which  led  to
most of his financial problems.

As far as being involved in an affray/injuries, a man was verbally and
physically abusing his spouse in his presence.  He was just protecting
her and her honor.  As an end  result,  the  end  didn’t  justify  the
means.  He should have just walked away.

The main staple of his discharge  was  over  the  misconduct  of  drug
abuse.  There were two other airmen with the same offense.  They  were
given rehabilitation and did not get discharged.   He  was  young  and
felt very ashamed of his actions so he did not fight to  stay  in  the
military.  He still feels ashamed.  After  being  discharged,  he  did
seek rehabilitation and moved on with his life.

Some facts that are not being shown in his records  are  not  all  bad
marks.   He  was  nominated  for  firefighter  of  the  year  for  two
consecutive  years.   During  each  of  the  ceremonies,  his  section
commander honored him by asking him to sit  at  his  table.   He  also
aided in a Singapore jet crash and helped save the life of the  pilot.
He was honored by the Singapore command.  He was also  well  liked  by
his fire chief.  These men knew he was an  excellent  firefighter  and
had a potential career as a lifer in the military.  That was his  goal
as well.  If he would have  been  rehabilitated  and  given  a  second
chance like the other two airmen, making the military a  career  would
have been an option.

Currently, he is working in the security  business.   He  is  directly
assisting in our national  security  against  terrorism.   He  has  an
opportunity to become a supervisor with his security  firm.   However,
without an honorable upgrade, this will not come to pass.

He has spent the past 20 years as a  law-abiding,  tax  paying  family
man.  He feels that he has done his part and paid  his  dues  for  our
country.  He is just asking the Board at  this  time  for  the  second
chance he did not receive 20 years ago.

He provided a statement regarding his FBI Report.  In this regard,  he
notes in August 2005, he broke off a relationship with a woman whom he
was sharing an apartment.  When he left, he took two items, a coat and
a cell phone, both of which he had receipts.  The items were  reported
as stolen to the local  police  department.   He  received  notice  to
appear before the local judge.  He presented the receipts to the court
and the charge was immediately dismissed.

A copy of applicant’s responses, with attachments, are 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.    We find no impropriety in the  characterization  of  applicant’s
discharge.  It appears that responsible officials applied  appropriate
standards in effecting the separation, and we do not  find  persuasive
evidence that pertinent regulations were violated  or  that  applicant
was not afforded all the rights to  which  entitled  at  the  time  of
discharge.  We conclude, therefore,  that  the  discharge  proceedings
were proper and characterization of the discharge was  appropriate  to
the existing circumstances.

4.    We also find insufficient evidence to warrant  a  recommendation
that the discharge be upgraded on the  basis  of  clemency.   We  have
considered applicant’s overall quality of service,  the  events  which
precipitated the discharge, and available evidence  related  to  post-
service activities and accomplishments.  On balance, we do not believe
that clemency is warranted.

_________________________________________________________________

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 2 August 2006, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
                 Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 May 06.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 2 Jun 06.
      Exhibit E. Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jun 06 and AFBCMR,
                       Dated 7 Jul 06.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Responses, dated 25 Jun 06 and
                       13 Jul 06, w/atchs.




                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                             Chair