RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02990
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  2 APR 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires his discharge be upgraded.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 9 April 1979, the applicant enlisted in  the  Regular  Air  Force  for  a
period of four years.

On 18 August 1981, the applicant was notified of his commander's  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon  him  for  the  following:   he  did,  at
Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, on or about 29 March 1981, violate  a
lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4-4, Air Force  Regulation  30-
2, dated 8 November 1976, by wrongfully transferring  some  amphetamines  to
an airman, in violation of the Uniform Code  of  Military  Justice,  Article
92.

Further investigation disclosed  he  did,  at  Vandenberg  Air  Force  Base,
California, at divers times between about  15  November  1980  and  about  1
February 1981, wrongfully use marijuana, in violation of  the  Uniform  Code
of Military Justice, Article 134.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to a trial  by
court-martial, did not desire to make an oral presentation, and submitted  a
written presentation in his own behalf.

He was found guilty by his commander who imposed the  following  punishment:
reduction in grade from airman first class to airman  with  a  new  date  of
rank (DOR) of 20 August 1981 and a forfeiture of $130.00.

The applicant did not appeal the punishment.  The Article 15  was  filed  in
his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 2 September 1981, the applicant was notified of  his  commander's  intent
to initiate discharge action against him for Misconduct - Drug  Abuse.   The
specific reasons follow:

      a. On 24 October 1979, the applicant was  issued  a  traffic  citation
for speeding.  He received a Letter of Counseling (LOC).

      b. He received another LOC for not attending a scheduled appointed.

      c. On or about 29 March 1981, the applicant  transferred  amphetamines
to a fellow airman.  Further investigation revealed at divers times  between
15 November 1980 and 1 February 1981, the  applicant  used  marijuana.   For
this, he was entered into the  Local  Drug  Rehabilitation  Program  and  he
received an Article 15.

The  commander   appointed   an   Evaluation   Officer   to   consider   the
recommendation by the squadron  section  commander  that  the  applicant  be
separated under the provisions of AFM 39-12.

The commander advised the applicant that  an  Evaluation  Officer  would  be
appointed to interview him regarding his case and of his  right  to  consult
legal counsel and submit statements in his own behalf.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that  the
two LOCs failed to instill respect in the applicant towards the  established
military laws.  He was identified through an Air  Force  Office  of  Special
Investigation (AFOSI) as a user of marijuana  and  a  supplier  of  lysergic
acid diethylamide (LSD).  For this, he  was  entered  into  the  Local  Drug
Rehabilitation Program and received an Article 15 and was  not  offered  the
opportunity  to  attend  the  Drug  Rehabilitation  Program   due   to   the
seriousness of  his  offenses.   His  retention  on  active  duty  would  be
inconsistent with the maintenance of order and discipline.

On 8 September 1981, after being interviewed by the Evaluation Officer,  the
applicant waived his right to submit a rebuttal or  statements  in  his  own
behalf.

On 9 September 1981, the Evaluation Officer indicated the  applicant  freely
admitted that he used marijuana and LSD, sold marijuana and speed;  however,
it was in the form of caffeine tablets.  He further indicated the  applicant
did adamantly insist that the never sold LSD; however,  he  had  no  way  to
prove it.  He did state he had learned his lesson and would never use  drugs
again.  The applicant was apparently an excellent  worker  as  evidenced  by
the written comments on his Airman Performance Reports  (APRs),  a  fact  of
which he was quite proud.  The applicant was not a  suitable  candidate  for
rehabilitation under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 4 and  recommended
the applicant be discharged from the  Air  Force  and  furnished  a  general
discharge.

On 11 September 1981, the Assistant Staff  Judge  Advocate  recommended  the
applicant be discharged pursuant to paragraph 2-15c, Section B,  Chapter  2,
AFM 39-12, and that he be issued a general discharge without  probation  and
rehabilitation.

On 15 September 1981,  the  convening  authority  approved  the  applicant’s
general discharge.

On  15  September  1981,  the  applicant   was   discharged   with   service
characterized as general (under honorable conditions) under  the  provisions
of AFM 39-12, Misconduct - Drug Abuse - Evaluation Officer.   The  applicant
served two years, five months, and seven days of total active duty service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation  (FBI),
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an Investigative  Report,  which  is  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial indicating that based on the documentation  on
file in the master personnel record 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  also
did not submit any evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that
occurred in  the  discharge  processing.   Nor  did  he  provide  any  facts
warranting a change to his character of service.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 14 October 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the
applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit E).   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.




On 31 October 2005, the Board staff requested the  applicant  provide  post-
service documentation within 20 days (Exhibit F).   The  applicant  provided
additional documentation which is at Exhibit G.

On 23 November 2005, the applicant was provided the opportunity  to  respond
to the  FBI  investigation  within  20  days  (Exhibit  H).   The  applicant
provided a response which is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

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  warranting  the  applicant’s  general
(under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to   an   honorable
discharge.  The Board believes  responsible  officials  applied  appropriate
standards  in  effecting  the  separation,  and  does  not  find  persuasive
evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that the applicant  was
not afforded all the rights to which entitled  at  the  time  of  discharge.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the  Board  finds  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.    The Board also find insufficient evidence to warrant a  recommendation
the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  The  letters  submitted
in behalf of the applicant are  noted;  however,  we  note  the  applicant’s
continued misconduct following  his  discharge.   Therefore,  based  on  the
evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or 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-
02990 in Executive Session on 12 January 2006, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
                 Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member
                 Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 September 2005.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 October 2005.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 October 2005.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 October 2005, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 November 2005,
                    w/atchs.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 November 2005, w/atch.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, undated.





                       LAURENCE M. GRONER
                       Panel Chair