RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01414
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable and his reenlistment code (RE) be changed to one that  would
allow him to enlist in the Army.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Since his discharge in 1986, he has striven to better himself in every
way possible.   He  spent  four  years  in  college  and  has  been  a
mechanical/electrical engineer for the past 12 years.  He  is  devoted
to his family, fitness and health.  He donates hundreds  of  hours  of
time and resources every year to a non-profit animal shelter.  He  has
been an upstanding citizen of his community for many years.  He  notes
his credit score is 744 and he has never had any infractions with  the
law.  He enjoys competing  in  marathons  and  endurance  sports.   He
recently took the ASVAB test in order to reenlist (he scored a 93) and
found out that his reenlistment (RE) code he received at his discharge
was one  that  would  not  allow  reenlistment.   He  feels  a  strong
injustice is being served when he has worked so hard for atonement  in
himself only to be punished 22 years later by the foolish actions of a
19 year-old airman at the time.  He feels the original  punishment  he
received was heavy-handed and was in response  to  the  Graham-Rudman-
Holling Balanced Budget Act that had many leaders of all  the  service
branches scrambling to cut their budgets by any means necessary.   His
punishment consisting of loss of rank and forfeiture of pay  was  just
and fair and should have been considered sufficient for a  first  time
offense of  an  otherwise  outstanding  airman.   He  would  like  the
opportunity to enlist in the Army.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement and copies of statements of support.

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

_________________________________________________________________




STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23 March 1984.  He  was
progressively promoted to his highest grade held of Airman First Class
(E-3) with a date of rank of 23 May  1985.   On  3 February  1986,  he
received an article 15  for  the  wrongful  use  and  distribution  of
marijuana on different occasions between the dates of 1 September 1985
to 15 November 1985. His punishment consisted of reduction in grade to
airman (E-2) and forfeiture of $100.  On 14 April 1986, his  commander
recommended he receive a general,  under  honorable  conditions  (UHC)
discharge in accordance with Air  Force  Regulation  (AFR)  39-10  for
commission of a serious offense  –  drug  abuse.   As  was  Air  Force
policy,  his  commander  considered  the  applicant  for  Probation  &
Rehabilitation  (P&R)  but  decided  to  deny  P&R  because   of   the
applicant’s distribution of marijuana to other airman.  Applicant  met
with counsel and submitted statements on  his  behalf.   On  22  April
1985, his general discharge  was  found  legally  sufficient.  He  was
discharged effective 12 May 1986 after serving for 1 year,  8  months,
and 29 days.

The applicant appealed to the Discharge Review board (DRB) to have his
general discharged upgraded to honorable.  The DRB convened on 4  June
1987 and denied his request.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

None.  The applicant  has  not  shown  the  characterization  of  his
discharge was contrary to the provisions  of  AFR  39-17,  Unfitness,
(Exhibit C).  Nor has he shown the nature of the discharge was unduly
harsh or disproportionate to the offenses committed.   At the time of
the applicant’s discharge, AFR 39-17, paragraph 8, stated  that  when
discharged because of unfitness, an Undesirable Discharge  (UD)  will
be furnished.  However, in 1959, AFR 39-17 was changed to state  that
an airman discharged under this regulation  should  be  furnished  an
undesirable discharge, unless the particular circumstances in a given
case warrants a general or  honorable  discharge.  Criteria  for  the
issuance of  an  undesirable,  general,  or  honorable  discharge  is
outlined in paragraph 9, AFR 39-10 (See Exhibit D).   Notwithstanding
the absence of error or injustice, the Board has the  prerogative  to
grant relief on the basis of clemency if so inclined.

Attached at Exhibit E is a  memorandum  prepared  by  the  Air  Force
Review  Boards  Agency  Legal  Advisor  addressing   the   issue   of
characterization of service and  how  standards  have  changed  since
1959.

_________________________________________________________________




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 error or  injustice  with  regard  to  upgrading  his
general discharge to an honorable discharge.  We took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the actions his  commander  at  the  time  took
regarding his general discharge, reduction in grade and forfeiture  of
pay.  The discharge appears to be in  compliance  with  the  governing
regulation and was  found  to  be  legally  sufficient.   We  find  no
evidence to indicate that his general discharge from the Air Force was
inappropriate or otherwise undeserved.  We find no indication of error
in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has
been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe  he
has suffered from an injustice that would  merit  an  upgrade  of  his
discharge.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of  record,  we
find no basis upon which to favorably consider his request.

4.  Notwithstanding the above, we do not believe he should  be  denied
the opportunity to apply for enlistment with the service component  of
his choosing.  Whether or not he is  successful  will  depend  on  the
needs of the service and our recommendation in no way guarantees  that
he will be allowed to return to any branch of the service.  Therefore,
we recommend the  applicant's  records  be  corrected  to  the  extent
indicated below.

5.  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  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 12 May 1986, he was
separated  under  the  provisions  of   AFR   39-10,   paragraph   1.2
(Secretarial Authority) with a reenlistment eligibility (RE)  code  of
3K.

______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2007-01414 in Executive Session on 14 June 2007, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:





      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
      Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member
      Mr. Michael F. McGhee, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 May 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Excerpt, AFR 39-17, dated 9 Feb 54.
    Exhibit D   Excerpt, AFR 39-10, undated.
    Exhibit E.  Memo, AFBCMR Legal Advisor, dated 17 Apr 07.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
                                   Panel Chair



                         DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
                                WASHINGTON DC


[pic]
Office Of The Assistant Secretary



AFBCMR BC-2007-01414




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 12 May 1986,
he was separated under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 1.2
(Secretarial Authority) with a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of
3K.





     JOE G. LINEBERGER

     Director

     Air Force Review Boards Agency