RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01842
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.00
                                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Narrative Reason for Separation and Separation Program Designator  (SPD)
code be changed to reflect he was separated due to hardship.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was unjust and based on an  isolated  incident.   He  was  not
provided with counsel, and  several  other  people  were  in  the  immediate
vicinity of the illegal  marijuana  that  was  confiscated.   He  should  be
compensated for being discharged.  He was caught with marijuana, but  others
were encouraged to implicate him, and were allowed  to  remain  in  the  Air
Force.

In support of his application the applicant provided a copy  of  a  personal
statement, and a copy  of  DD  Form  293,  Application  for  the  Review  of
Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10 Aug 81, for  a  period
of four years, and was trained as an Avionic Navigation Systems Helper.

On 10 Mar 82, he was notified of his commander's  intent  to  recommend  him
for discharge for Drug Abuse, under the provisions of AFR 39-12,  Separation
for Unsuitability, Misconduct,  Personal  Abuse  of  Drugs,  Resignation  or
Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service.

The commander stated the following reasons for the proposed discharge:

        a. On 26 Dec 81, he was apprehended  by  the  Keesler  AFB  Security
           Police for possession of marijuana.


        b. Article 15, dated 7 Jan 82, wrongful possession  some  amount  of
           marijuana.


        c. On 12 Jun 82, he was entered into  the  USAF  Drug/Rehabilitation
           Program.


A legal review was conducted on 8 Apr 82, in which the staff judge  advocate
recommended   that   he   be   separated   with   an   honorable   discharge
characterization  without  probation  and  rehabilitation.   The   discharge
authority approved the discharge on 11  Apr  82,  and  on  22  Apr  82,  the
applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic (E-1)  for  Misconduct
– Drug Abuse.

He was  separated  with  an  honorable  discharge  characterization,  and  a
reenlistment eligibility  code  of  2C,  “Involuntarily  separated  with  an
honorable discharge; or entry level separation without  characterization  of
service”, which bars  immediate  reenlistment.   He  served  a  total  of  8
months, and 13 days active service.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 9 March 2006, that on the  basis  of  the  data
furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit D).

The applicant submitted a new DD Form 149, dated 17 Nov  08,  and  his  case
was reopened (Exhibit F).

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  Based upon the  documentation  in  the  file,
the  discharge  was  consistent  with   the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.  The applicant did not submit  any
new evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge processing.

The complete DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14  Jul
06, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  On  15  Aug  06,  an
email  stating  the  applicant’s  desire  that  his  appeal  be  temporarily
withdrawn was forwarded to the Board.

________________________________________________________________

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.  The majority of the Board finds no impropriety in  the  characterization
of applicant's discharge.  It appears  that  responsible  officials  applied
appropriate standards in effecting  the  separation,  and  we  do  not  find
persuasive  evidence  that  pertinent  regulations  were  violated  or  that
applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the  time  of
discharge.  The majority of the Board concludes the applicant has failed  to
sustain his burden of establishing the discharge proceedings  were  improper
and the characterization of the discharge was  inappropriate  based  on  the
existing circumstances.

4.    The majority of the Board also finds insufficient evidence to  warrant
upgrade of the discharge on the  basis  of  clemency.   We  have  considered
applicant's overall quality of service  and  the  offenses  leading  to  his
separation.  However, based on the evidence of record and in the absence  of
documentation pertaining to his post-service accomplishments,  the  majority
of the Board cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.   In  view  of  the
above, the majority of the Board cannot  recommend  approval  based  on  the
current evidence of record.

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 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  Docket  Number  BC-2006-01842
in Executive Session on 2 Jun 09, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Debra M. Czajkowski, Member
                       Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member

By a majority vote, the Board  voted  to  deny  the  request.   Mr. Novitski
voted to correct the record and declined to  submit  minority  report.   The
following documentary evidence was considered under Docket  Number  BC-2006-
01842:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jun 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Response.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 30 Jun 06.
    Exhibit E.  SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jul 06.
    Exhibit F.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Nov 08.





                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Panel Chair