RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05140
		COUNSEL:  NONE
	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be 
upgraded to “Honorable.”

2.  His narrative reason for separation, “Misconduct-Drug 
Abuse,” be changed.

________________________________________________________________
__

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has served honorably during his entire time in the service.  
He only had one positive urinalysis and did not abuse drugs.

The applicant provides no documents in support of his request.

His complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________
__

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 19 Sep 1986, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.

On 23 Feb 1987, his commander notified him that he was 
recommending he be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, 
Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The specific reason for 
this action was his abuse of drugs as evidenced by a urine 
specimen for which he received an Article 15.

On 23 Feb 1987, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge notification and on 9 Mar 1987, he submitted documents 
for consideration.

On 5 Mar 1987, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found the 
discharge legally sufficient.

On 12 Mar 1987, the discharge authority directed the applicant 
be discharged without probation and rehabilitation.

On 18 Mar 1987, he was discharged from the Air Force with a 
general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  The narrative 
reason for separation is “Misconduct-Drug Abuse.”  He served 
3 years, 11 months, and 14 days of total active service.

On 4 Jan 1989, the applicant submitted a request to the Air 
Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for an upgrade to his 
discharge.

On 24 Mar 1989, the applicant was notified that the AFDRB 
considered his application and concluded that the discharge was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full 
administrative due process.

On 2 Jul 2013, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C), 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.  In the interest of 
justice, 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 in this application.

________________________________________________________________

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 15 Aug 2013, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

    , Panel Chair
    , Member
    , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-05140:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Oct 2012.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Jul 2013.




                                   
                                   Acting Panel Chair


2


2