RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03278
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  28 APRIL 2008


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  be
upgraded to an honorable discharge.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was influenced by other people to guide  him  and  made  some  bad
choices that he regrets.  He is now disabled and will need assistance
for the rest of his life.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a DD Form 293.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  (RegAF)  on  7 November
1979 in the grade of airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 14 June 1982, the applicant’s commander notified him  that  he  was
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force under the provisions
of Air Force Manual (AFM) 39-12 for drug abuse.  The specific  reasons
for the discharge action were:

      a.    On 21 October 1981, the applicant was identified as a user
and possessor of marijuana as the result  of  a  commander  authorized
search of Building 522, Room 205.

      b.    On 5 November 1981, the applicant  received  a  Letter  of
Reprimand (LOR) for personal drug abuse.

      c.    On 5 May 1982, the applicant was identified as a user  and
possessor of marijuana, as the result of a Health, Morale, and Welfare
inspection of Building 1521, a search of his privately  owned  vehicle
and by his own admission.

      d.    On 7 May 1982, the applicant received an  Article  15  for
personal drug abuse.

The  commander  advised  applicant  that  military  counsel  had  been
obtained  to  assist  him;  present  his  case  to  an  administrative
discharge board; be represented by legal counsel at a  board  hearing;
submit statements in his own behalf in addition to, or in lieu of, the
board hearing;  or  waive  the  above  rights  after  consulting  with
counsel.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of  discharge
and after consulting with counsel waived  his  right  to  a  hearing
before a board of officers and  to  submit  statements  in  his  own
behalf.

A Headquarters and base legal review was conducted and they determined
the case was legally sufficient to support separation and  recommended
the applicant be discharged with an UOTHC discharge without  probation
and rehabilitation.

On 16 July 1982, the discharge authority approved the separation  and
directed that the applicant  be  discharged  with  an  UOTHC  without
probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 20 July 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  –
board waiver) with an UOTHC discharge.  He served 2 years,  7  months
and 28 days of active duty service.

The applicant appealed  to  the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board
(AFDRB) to have his UOTHC discharge upgraded to honorable.  The AFDRB
denied the applicant’s appeal for an upgrade of his  discharge  on  1
September 1994.

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 recommends denial of the request the  applicant’s  to  have
his UOTHC discharge upgraded to honorable.   DPPRS states
based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel
record;  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 evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that
occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no facts warranting
a change in his character of service.

AFPC/DPPRS’complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant  reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluation  and  states  his
dissatisfaction with the military and further states he would like  to
clear his name (Exhibit E).

A copy of the FBI Investigation was forwarded to the  applicant  on  6
December 2006 for review and comment within 14 days.  As of this date,
this office has received no response (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.   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.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence  of
record, we find no evidence to show that the applicant’s discharge was
erroneous or unjust.  Based on the documentation  in  the  applicant's
records, it appears that the  processing  of  the  discharge  and  the
characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in
accordance with Air  Force  policy.   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-
2006-03278  in  Executive  Session  on  11  January  2007  under   the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Todd L. Schaffer, Member
                       Ms. Maureen B. Higgins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Oct 06, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 Nov 06.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Nov 06.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 6 Dec 06.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Dec 06.




                                        LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                        Panel Chair