RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01333
                                       INDEX CODE:  112.10
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                COUNSEL: NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 November 2008


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  records  be  changed  to  reflect  a  different  narrative  reason  for
discharge and a different reenlistment eligibility (RE) code to  enable  him
to reenter military service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His entry on active duty was not fraudulent.  He had a  negative  urinalysis
on 5 March 2007, two days before he left for basic training.

In support of his application, the applicant provides copies of his DD  Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from  Active  Duty,  his  discharge
file, and correspondence pertaining to a congressional inquiry.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 6 March 2007, 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  six  years.   The
applicant tested positive for Marijuana Tetrahydrocannabinol  (THC)  from  a
urine sample he provided on 8 March 2007.

On 21 March 2007, his commander notified the applicant he  was  recommending
the applicant for  discharge  under  the  provisions  of  Air  Force  Policy
Directive (AFPD) 36-32 and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208,  Chapter  5,
Section 5C,  Defective  Enlistments,  Paragraph  5.15,  with  the  basis  of
discharge being Fraudulent Entry.  On 23 March 2007,  the  applicant  waived
his right to submit a statement in his own behalf.  On 27  March  2007,  the
Assistant Staff Judge Advocate found the case to be legally sufficient.   On
28 March 2007, the discharge authority approved  the  applicant’s  discharge
as an entry-level separation, with  a  separation  code  of  “JDT”/narrative
reason for  separation  as  “Fraudulent  Entry  into  Military  Service/Drug
Abuse,” a reentry code of  “2C”  (entry-level  separation),  and  a  service
characterization of “Uncharacterized.”

The applicant was discharged effective 2 April  2007.   He  served  4 months
and 17 days on active duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFMOA/SG3OO recommends the applicant’s request be denied.   SG3OO  states  a
forensic urinalysis conducted at the Department of Defense  (DoD)  certified
Air Force Drug Testing Laboratory (AFDTL) detected  41  nanograms  (ng)  per
milliliter (ml) of metabolic product of marijuana in the applicant’s  urine.
 The confirmation administrative cutoff established by DoD is  15  ng/ml  of
metabolites strongly  suggests  that  it  is  not  a  result  of  a  passive
inhalation of secondary  marijuana  smoke  as  claimed  by  the  applicant’s
father.  The presence of 41  ng/ml  of  marijuana  metabolite  indicates  an
active use of marijuana approximately one to four  days  prior  to  8  March
2007.

The SG3OO’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial  of  the  applicant’s  request.   DPPRS  states
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 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  the  discharge  processing.   He
provided no facts warranting a change to his reenlistment  eligibility  code
or narrative reason for separation.

DPPRS states that airmen are  given  entry-level  separation/uncharacterized
service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180  days
of continuous active service.  The DoD determined if a  member  served  less
than 180 days continuous active service, it would be unfair  to  the  member
and the service to  characterize  their  limited  service.   Therefore,  the
applicant’s  uncharacterized  character  of  service  is  correct   and   in
accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  13
July 2007, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).   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 timely filed.

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  office  of  primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion  that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.   Therefore,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 29 August 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
                 Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2007-01333:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 May 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFMOA/SG3OO, dated 4 Jun 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Jun 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jul 07.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair