RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03671
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 June 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable,  change  reason  for  discharge  to  “convenience  of   the
government,” and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed  to
RE-1.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His ability to serve was impaired by his  substance  abuse  which  was
unaddressed/untreated even after it was discovered.

At some point during  the  disciplinary  proceedings  leading  to  his
discharge, he was made aware of the fact that other Air Force  members
who also had committed first-time drug/alcohol-related  offenses  were
given a rehabilitation program and retained by the Air  Force  whereas
he was not.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a  personal  statement,  a
certificate, and a character reference.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 25  April  1980  for  a
period of four years.  Applicant was promoted to the grade  of  airman
on 25 October 1980 and the grade of airman first  class  on  25  April
1981.  He received two airman performance reports  (APRs)  closing  24
April 1981 and 1 April 1982, which the overall evaluations  were  “7,”
and “7.”

On 7 May 1982, the applicant’s commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending discharge  from  the  Air  Force  for  drug  abuse.   The
commander was recommending the applicant receive  an  under  honorable
conditions (general)  discharge  based  on  the  following:   (1)  The
applicant’s personal abuse of drugs on 8 March 1982  resulted  in  him
being unable to complete his duty shift.  He took an unauthorized, non-
prescription drug - Benzodiazepine.   (2)  The  applicant  received  a
Letter of Reprimand for being late for work and sleeping on duty on 13
May 1982.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the  notification  of  discharge
and after consulting with legal counsel submitted  statements  in  his
own behalf.

An evaluation officer reviewed the case on  9  June  1982,  found  the
applicant an unsuitable candidate for rehabilitation, and  recommended
he be discharged from the Air Force with an under honorable conditions
(general) discharge.

The  base  legal  office  reviewed  the  case  and  found  it  legally
sufficient to support the separation and recommended he be  discharged
with  an  under  honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge   without
probation and rehabilitation.

The discharge authority approved the separation and directed that  the
applicant be discharged with an under honorable  conditions  (general)
discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

The applicant was separated from the Air Force on 28 June  1982  under
the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct,
Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service  and
Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program (misconduct -  drug  abuse),
with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  He had served
2 years, 2 months and 4 days  on  active  duty.   He  was  assigned  a
reenlistment eligibility code of 2B,  “Separated  with  a  general  or
under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge”.

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.  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.  A
complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 23 December 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded
to the applicant for review  and  response  within  30  days.   On  26
January  2006,  the  applicant  was  invited  to  provide  information
pertaining to his activities since leaving the service.   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  error  or  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
office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the  basis
for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  Therefore, in the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought  in
this application.

4.    We also find insufficient evidence to warrant  a  recommendation
that his requests be favorably considered 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.  Based on the evidence of
record, and given his current incarceration, we cannot  conclude  that
clemency  is  warranted.   Applicant  has  not   provided   sufficient
information of post-service activities and accomplishments for  us  to
conclude that he has overcome the behavioral traits which  caused  the
discharge.  Hence, we cannot recommend approval based on  the  current
evidence of record.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2005-03671 in Executive Session on 19 April 2006, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Dec 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Dec 05.
      Exhibit E. Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Dec 05, and AFBCMR,
                       dated 26 Jan 06 and 7 Mar 06, w/atchs.




                             CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                             Panel Chair