RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01682
                                       INDEX CODE:  112.10
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                  COUNSEL: NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  9 December 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The penalty he suffered was too harsh.  His bad  record  is  inhibiting  his
ability to gain employment.  A one-time  failed  urinalysis  test  does  not
constitute drug abuse or misconduct.  He acknowledges his mistakes and  asks
for reconsideration and  leniency.   He  feels  he  has  paid  his  debt  to
society.

In support of his application, the applicant provided a copy of his DD  Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 March 1980, the applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  at  the
age of 19 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a  period  of  four  years.
Following basic training and technical school,  he  served  as  an  Avionics
Sensor Systems Specialist.  He was progressively promoted  to  the  rank  of
staff sergeant (E-5) effective and with a date of rank of 1 July 1983.

On 4 October 1983, the applicant received non-judicial  punishment  (Article
15) for wrongful use of marijuana.  His punishment  consisted  of  reduction
in rank to sergeant (E-4) with a date  of  rank  of  18  November  1983  and
forfeiture of $300 pay per month for two months.  On 18 November  1983,  the
applicant acknowledged receipt and chose not to appeal his  punishment.   On
21 November 1983, his commander vacated the  applicant’s  appointment  as  a
noncommissioned officer reducing his  rank  to  senior  airman  (E-4).   The
applicant chose not to appeal his commander’s decision.

On 14 November 1983, the applicant  received  a  letter  of  counseling  for
failure to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty.

On 21 December 1983, the applicant was notified of  his  commander’s  intent
to recommend him for discharge for drug abuse under  the  authority  of  Air
Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, paragraph 5-49c,  with  a  general  discharge.
On 22 December 1983, the applicant acknowledged receipt of  his  commander’s
intent, consulted counsel, and waived his right to submit statements in  his
own behalf.  On 23 December 1983, the discharge case file was  found  to  be
legally sufficient by the Deputy  Staff  Judge  Advocate.   On  29  December
1983, the discharge authority approved the discharge  under  the  provisions
of AFR 39-10, Chapter  5,  Section  H,  Paragraph  5-49c  and  directed  the
applicant be discharged without probation or rehabilitation with  a  general
(under honorable conditions) discharge.

The applicant was separated with  a  general  (under  honorable  conditions)
discharge  effective  23  January  1984  with  a  separation  code  of   JKK
(misconduct – drug abuse)  and  a  reentry  code  of  2B  (discharged  under
general or other-than-honorable  discharge).   He  served  3  years  and  10
months on active duty.

On 20 October 1985, the applicant submitted an application to the Air  Force
Discharge Review Board  (AFDRB)  requesting  his  general  (under  honorable
conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge  and  to  change
the reason for his discharge.  The AFDRB  considered  all  the  evidence  of
record and concluded that the discharge was consistent with  the  procedural
and substantive requirements of the discharge authority  and  the  applicant
was provided full administrative due process; thereby, denying  his  request
to upgrade his discharge.  The AFDRB further concluded that there exists  no
legal or equitable  basis  for  upgrade  of  the  applicant’s  character  of
service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states the  applicant’s  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation in affect at that time and was  within  the  discretion
of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit  any  evidence  or
identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred   in   his   discharge
processing.  It is DPPRS’ opinion that the applicant has provided  no  facts
warranting a change to his character of service.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on  23
June 2006 for review and response within 30 days.  As of this  date,  this
office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  The applicant  did  not  provide
persuasive evidence showing the  information  in  the  discharge  case  was
erroneous, his substantial rights were violated,  or  that  his  commanders
abused their discretionary authority.  The  characterization  of  discharge
which was issued at the  time  of  the  applicant’s  separation  accurately
reflects the circumstances of  his  separation  and  we  do  not  find  the
characterization of discharge to be in error or unjust.   In  view  of  the
foregoing and in the absence of evidence by the applicant  attesting  to  a
successful post-service adjustment in the years since  his  separation,  we
are not inclined to extend  clemency  in  this  case.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence to the  contrary,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to
recommend favorable action on 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 24 August 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2006-01584:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 May 06, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Jun 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jun 06.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair