RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02802 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to 
honorable. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was young and did do some drugs during 1971-72, which was 
wrong on his part, but he has not touched them since. 

 

The psychiatrist was wrong in his evaluation of him in 1972. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
discharge letter and Airman Performance Report. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 15 Apr 70 and was 
progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant. 

 

On 14 Apr 72, the applicant was notified by his squadron 
commander that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air 
Force for unsuitability. The basis for the recommendation was a 
psychiatric evaluation that revealed the applicant possessed a 
character and behavior disorder that warranted administrative 
discharge procedures. In addition, it was also reported that he 
had a history of illicit use of drugs prior to and since entry 
into the Air Force. He reportedly used marijuana, barbiturates 
and amphetamines, also mescaline on one occasion and LSD on about 
35 occasions. In the opinion of the psychiatrist, the 
applicant’s history of drug use, and lack of interest in the 
rehabilitation program, warranted the discharge action. 

 

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification 
and that he had consulted with military counsel. On 19 Apr 72, 
he waived his rights associated with an administrative discharge 
board hearing, and declined to submit statements in his own 
behalf. 

 


On 19 Apr 72, the Acting Staff Judge Advocate found the case file 
legally sufficient to support separation with a general 
discharge. 

 

On 26 Apr 72, the discharge authority approved the separation and 
directed a general discharge. He was discharged on 28 Apr 72, in 
the grade of sergeant, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, and received a general discharge. 
He served on active duty for a period of 2 years and 14 days. 

 

Pursuant to the request of the Board on 23 Sep 11, the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated on 
5 Oct 11, that, on the basis of the data furnished, they were 
unable to locate an arrest record. 

 

On 14 Oct 11, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an 
opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities 
since leaving the service (Exhibit D). As of this date, no 
response has been received by this office. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice 
that occurred in the discharge processing. Based on the 
available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was 
consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. 
The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to 
believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the 
provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or 
disproportionate to the offenses committed. We considered 
upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not 
find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to 
recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. Therefore, 
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon 
which to recommend granting the relief sought. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-02802 in Executive Session on 1 Dec 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Jul 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 14 Oct 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair