RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02232

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 28 JANUARY 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable and his grade of technical sergeant (E-6) be restored.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Based on all  the  tangible  evidence,  his  defense  lawyer  did  not
represent him fairly. His counsel did not allow him to make a  written
statement, as to the truth of what actually happened.  His  supervisor
was allowed to make a statement in which parts of it  was  inaccurate.
He did not smoke marijuana as stated and his urine  test  on  11  July
1989 was negative.

In support of his application, applicant provided a personal letter, a
copy of DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge  from  Active
Duty, Congressional Letters, and letters of reference,

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 November 1973 for
a period of four years and was progressively promoted to the grade  of
technical sergeant.

On 14 August 1989, applicant's  commander  recommended  discharge  for
misconduct-drug abuse.  The commander was recommending  the  applicant
receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification  of  discharge  and
after consulting with legal counsel submitted a conditional waiver  of
his rights associated with an administrative discharge  board  hearing
contingent upon receipt of no less than  a  general  (under  honorable
conditions) discharge.

Headquarters 22nd Air Force legal office and the  base  legal  officer
reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support discharge
and recommended the conditional waiver be accepted  and  applicant  be
separated  from  the  Air  Force  with  a  general  (under   honorable
conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

The discharge authority accepted the  applicant’s  conditional  waiver
request and directed that he  be  discharged  with  a  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 13 October 1989, under the provisions of AFR 39-10,  Administrative
Separation of  Airmen  (misconduct-other  serious  offenses),  with  a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He served a period  of
15 years, 11 months and 11 days of total military service.

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:

AFLOA/JAJM recommended denial and stated a commander’s  action  should
only be set aside when the evidence demonstrates an error or  a  clear
injustice. The applicant has not presented evidence  of  a  meaningful
material error or clear injustice  in  the  Article  15  process.  The
applicant availed himself of his opportunity to present  his  case  to
the commander and the appeal authority, both of  which  had  the  most
relevant knowledge of  the  information  surrounding  the  Article  15
action. At that time the applicant did not dispute the facts on  which
the Article 15 was based. It is only almost 17  years  later  that  he
disputes the facts on which the actions were taken.

AFLOA/JAJM’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and 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.
The applicant did not submit any new evidence warranting a  change  to
his general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

AFPC/DPPR’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.



AFPC/DPPPWB recommended denial and stated  the  commander  was  acting
within his authority when he imposed punishment reducing the applicant
to the grade of staff sergeant.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit F

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A FBI Report was forwarded to the applicant for  review  and  response
within 15 days.

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated after  his
discharge,  he  felt  betrayed,  specifically  from  his   supervisor,
commander, and the legal counsel provided to him. After his  discharge
he had many medical problems and a family to support. He also was very
depressed and felt no desire to appeal his case until now. He felt the
only way to get rid of this depression was to appeal his case  and  in
the interest of justice and not the fact that he waited  too  long  to
appeal.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.


_________________________________________________________________

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, the Board excused
the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice.  After a  thorough  review  of
the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that his discharge should be  upgraded  to  honorable.   The
applicant has not established by his  submission  that  his  commander
abused his discretionary authority, and since we find no abuse of that
authority, there is no compelling reason to overturn  the  commander’s
decision.  We agree with the opinions and recommendations of  the  Air
Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having  suffered  either
an error or an injustice.   Therefore, in absence of evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  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 Docket  Number  BC-2006-
02232 in Executive Session on 7 December 2006, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. BJ White-Olson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Debra K. Walker, Member
                 Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2006-
02232 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jul 06, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report, dated 11 Oct 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFLOA-JAJM, dated 13 Sep 06.
      Exhibit E. Letter AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Sep 06.
      Exbibit F. Letter AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 4 Oct 06.
      Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Oct 06.
      Exhibit H. Applicant’s Response, undated.






      BJ WHITE-OLSON
      Panel Chair