RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02827 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: There is no error. He was discharged due to his actions and behavior. He deeply regrets violating the trust his country placed in him. Since his discharge he has lived his life as honorably as possible. He married, graduated from college, became a teacher, and raised two children. He hopes that his actions and behavior since his discharge will have some positive effect with the decision process. The applicant did not provide any supporting documents. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS – DISCHARGE UPGRADE NO ADVISORY: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 June 1973. He was progressively promoted to the grade of Sergeant, E-4. In May 1977 the applicant received an Article 15 for possession of marijuana on base, with punishment consisting of a suspended reduction to the grade of Airman First Class, E-3, and forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 2 months. As a result of the Article 15, the applicant participated in and successfully completed the base drug rehabilitation program in April 1978. On 6 June 1978 the applicant was arrested by civil authorities under the charge of cultivation and possession of marijuana. At the time of his arrest, the applicant was found in possession of one marijuana cigarette, some marijuana seeds and 25 marijuana plants. On 27 September 1978, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2; section B, paragraph 2-15c. The specific reason for the proposed action was; the applicant had been frequently involved in behavior that was inconsistent with acceptable Air Force standards. Despite attempts to advise and motivate him, his behavior continued to have adverse effects on the people and the mission of the squadron. His continuous involvement with drugs affected his duty performance and judgment. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and was advised of his right to present his case before an administrative discharge board, subject to his being available, consult counsel, and submit statements on his behalf. On 17 October 1978 the applicant waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers provided he was issued a general discharge certificate. He opted to submit statements on his behalf. He again acknowledged his right to military counsel or to employ civilian counsel at his own expense if desired but he did not indicate whether he would consult counsel or waive his right to consult counsel. Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient, the discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. The applicant was released from active duty on 22 November 1978 and was credited with 5 years, 5 months and 2 days of active duty service. Pursuant to the Board's request, the FBI was unable to identify an arrest record on the basis of information furnished. ________________________________________________________________ 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 during the discharge process. 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, or unduly harsh. We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of evidence by the applicant attesting to a successful post-service adjustment in the years since his separation, we are not inclined to extend clemency at this time. However, the Board is willing to reconsider the applicant’s request and have included an Information Bulletin to assist the applicant in submitting a future request. 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 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 this application BC-2011-02827 in Executive Session on 27 March 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 July 2011. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Panel Chair