RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00364

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  8 AUG 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility designation be changed from  “ineligible”
to “eligible.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was unjustly discharged from the Air Force Reserve for drug  abuse.
He was unknowingly drugged by the mother of his sons.  She tainted his
vitamins with methamphetamines.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal  statement
and supportive statements.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 22 Feb 98, the applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending he be discharged from the  Air  Force  Reserve  for  drug
abuse.  The reason for the proposed discharge was that  the  applicant
tested positive for amphetamine/methamphetamine.

On 6 Mar 98,  the  Office  of  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  found  the
discharge case file to  be  legally  sufficient  and  recommended  the
applicant be discharged with an under other than honorable  conditions
(UOTHC) characterization of service.

Applicant was honorably discharged on 17 Feb 99 under  the  provisions
of AFI  36-3209  (Misconduct,  Commission  of  Serious  Offense,  Drug
Abuse), with his reenlistment eligibility designated as ineligible.

The remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the  Air
Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/JAJ recommends denial noting that on 13  Dec  97,  the  applicant
submitted a urine specimen as part of a random urinalysis.   The  next
day, while the results of the urina1ysis were still pending, on 14 Dec
97, the applicant reenlisted in the Air Force Reserve.  In Jan 98, his
specimen  was  reported   back   as   having   tested   positive   for
methamphetamines and amphetamines.  The applicant’s alleged misconduct
(the alleged wrongful drug use) did occur in  a  previous  enlistment,
but the acts or conditions were not known by the unit commander  until
after he reenlisted.  Thus, the applicant’s commander recommended that
he be separated with a general (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.


AFRC/JAJ indicated that on 9 Apr 98, a memorandum of  notification  of
involuntary discharge was sent  to  the  applicant.   He  acknowledged
receipt of the notification and requested to have his case heard by an
administrative discharge board.  The discharge board was  held  on  29
and 30 Jul 98.  The applicant was present and was represented by legal
counsel.  Although the statement  of  reasons  listing  the  basis  of
discharge in the notification letter  stated  multiple  offenses  that
occurred in the prior enlistment, the  board  only  substantiated  the
drug abuse that was not known by the unit commander  until  after  the
applicant reenlisted.  The board found,  by  a  preponderance  of  the
evidence, the applicant  did  wrongfully  use  controlled  substances,
specifically  methamphetamine  and  amphetamine.    The   board   also
considered the seven retention criteria and found  the  applicant  did
not meet them.  Consistent with the findings, the board recommended he
be separated from the Air Force Reserve.

AFRC/JAJ noted that at the time  of  his  involuntary  discharge,  the
applicant had 18 years of satisfactory  service.   His  administrative
discharge was reviewed  to  determine  if  lengthy  service  probation
should be given to him so he could  obtain  the  necessary  years  for
retirement from the Air Force Reserve.  The Secretary of the Air Force
denied lengthy service probation and  ordered  the  execution  of  the
administrative discharge pursuant to AFI 36-3209.  The  discharge  was
effective 17 Feb 99 and the characterization was an honorable  service
characterization.

According to AFRC/JAJ, a recent conversation a drug testing expert  at
Brooks Laboratory revealed the  applicant’s  explanation  of  how  the
drugs got into his urine specimen was very unlikely.  The drug  expert
stated the applicant has been able to feel the effects at  some  point
after taking the methamphetamine-laced vitamins.  She also stated that
if his vitamins made him feel unusual, he should have had the vitamins
sent to the Brooks Laboratory for testing.  This  was  not  done,  and
there was no evidence that indicated this defense to his wrongful drug
use was even raised at the time of his board.   Additionally,  if  his
girlfriend was so motivated to end the applicant’s  Air  Force  career
that she would spend probably a good amount of  money  by  continually
lacing his vitamins in the hope that he would be eventually pegged for
a random urinalysis, one would think that  she  would  have  given  an
“anonymous tip” to the  applicant’s  unit  he  was  wrongfully  taking
methamphetamines.  Under that circumstance the unit could have  seized
a urine sample from  the  applicant  under  a  probable  cause  search
warrant.  Instead, the applicant gave his urine sample during a random
urinalysis.  The odds were near astronomical that, at  the  same  time
his former girlfriend was lacing his vitamins  with  methamphetamines,
the applicant was picked for a random urinalysis.  Finally, his former
girlfriend of several years (and his son's mother) is a person with  a
strong bias and motive to possibly lie on behalf of the applicant. For
these reasons, they do not view this “new evidence” as being  credible
enough  to  overturn  the  decision  reached  by  the   administrative
discharge board.

A complete copy of the AFRC/JAJ evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 4 Aug
06 for review and response within  30  days.   As  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The evidence of record indicates
the applicant was involuntarily discharged for drug abuse as a  result
of his positive urinalysis for methamphetamines and amphetamines,  and
his  reenlistment  eligibility  was  designated  as  ineligible.    No
evidence has been presented which would lead us to  believe  that  his
discharge was improper or contrary to the  governing  directive  under
which it was  effected,  or  that  his  reenlistment  eligibility  was
inappropriately designated.  In view of  the  foregoing,  and  in  the
absence of sufficient evidence to the  contrary,  we  agree  with  the
recommendation of the office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt
its rationale as the basis for our decision  that  the  applicant  has
failed to sustain his burden of establishing he has suffered either an
error or an injustice.  Accordingly, 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-
2006-00364 in Executive Session on 19 Sep 06, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
      Mr. Elwood C. Lewis, Member
      Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jan 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFRC/JAJ, dated 21 Jul 06.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Aug 06.




                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair