RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02195
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  24 JANUARY 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of the incident he felt the decision was  inequitable  for
several reasons.  He had never been in trouble  before  and  had  good
service time until the incident.

He was not made aware of the ramifications of his decision.

Since then he has led a good clean life  and  believes  his  discharge
should be changed.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF)  as  an  basic
airman (AB) on 27 September 1979 for a period of four years.

On 19 November 1980, the applicant was  notified  of  his  commander’s
intent to initiate discharge action under the provisions of Air  Force
Manuel (AFM) 39-12 for frequent involvement of a discreditable  nature
with civil and military authorities.  The  specific  reasons  for  the
discharge action were:

            a.    The applicant’s marginal performance  was  noted  in
his performance reports.

             b.     The  applicant  received   numerous   letters   of
counseling (LOC) for repeated failure to report for duty in  a  timely
manner.

            c.    The applicant received an Article  15  for  wrongful
use of a meal card.

            d.    The applicant received an Article 15 for  possession
of marijuana.

            e.    The applicant received an incident  report  for  his
involvement in civil charges for possession of marijuana.

            f.    The applicant  received  a  Letter  of  Admonishment
(LOA) for needing a haircut and parking  in  an  unauthorized  parking
lot.

            g.    The applicant received a Letter of Indebtedness  for
financial irresponsibility.

            h.    The  United  States  Customs  found  four  grams  of
marijuana in the applicant’s vehicle and three grams of  marijuana  in
his coat pocket.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the  notification  of  discharge
and that legal counsel was made available to him to assist him.

On 30 December 1981, the evaluation officer reviewed the case file and
the applicant’s Unit Personnel Records, and all other  related  papers
and conducted a personal interview with the applicant.  The evaluation
officer  recommended  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  an   under
honorable conditions (general)  discharge  without  consideration  for
rehabilitation.

A legal review was conducted in which the staff judge  advocate  (SJA)
recommended the  applicant  be  discharged  with  an  under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge with no probation and rehabilitation.

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

The applicant was discharged on 13 January 1981, in the  grade  of  AB
with an under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge.   He  had  a
total of 1 year, 3 months and 16 days of active duty service.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not  submitted  any  evidence  nor
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of
his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the  service  member's
file, they believe his discharge was consistent  with  the  procedural
and substantive requirements of  the  discharge  regulations  of  that
time.  Also, the discharge was within  the  sound  discretion  of  the
discharge authority.  The applicant did not provide any other facts to
warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  Based  on  the  information  and
evidence provided they recommend the request be denied (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
18 August 2006, for review and response.  As of this date, no response
has been received by this office.

On 25 September 2006, the Board staff forwarded the applicant  a  copy
of FBI report for review and response.  As of this date,  no  response
has been received by this office (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.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or an injustice  to  warrant  upgrading  the
applicant’s discharge.  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  and  adopt  its
rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed
to sustain his burden that he has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  Based on the documentation in the applicant's records,  it
appears the processing of the discharge and  the  characterization  of
the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air
Force policy.  The Board notes that according to the FBI  Report,  the
misconduct  appears  to  have  continued  after  the   applicant   was
discharged.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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-
2006-02195  in  Executive  Session  on  25  October  2006  under   the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Gary G. Sauner, Member
                 Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jul 06.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Jul 06.
   Exhibit E.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Aug 06.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 25 Sep 06, w/atch.




                                        KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                        Panel Chair