RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05667

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to an Honorable Discharge. 


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Other than one positive blood test he otherwise had a fine 
record. He has been a good citizen since his discharge and feels 
his service should reflect this.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on       
28 April 1981.

On 15 January 1985, the applicant was notified by his commander 
of his intent to recommend his discharge for “Misconduct-Drug 
Abuse,” under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative 
Separation of Airmen, para 5-49c.  The reason for this action 
was that on or about 30 August 1984, the applicant tested 
positive for marijuana on a urinalysis test from a random 
inspection of squadron members, for which he received an 
Article 15. 

On 21 January 1985, after consulting with legal counsel, the 
applicant submitted a statement in regards to the Article 15 
action as to why his urinalysis test came back positive and a 
copy of an Air Force Times article.  The applicant challenged 
the validity of the urinalysis and cited his good record. 

On 5 February 1985, the action was found to be legally 
sufficient.

On 19 February 1985, the applicant was furnished with a general 
(under honorable conditions) discharge and was credited with 3 
years, 9 months, and 22 days of active service.

On 6 July 1988, the applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge 
Review Board (AFDRB) to have his discharge upgraded to 
Honorable.  The applicant appeared in person, with counsel, on 
30 January 1989.  The AFDRB denied his request, concluding the 
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the 
discretion of the discharge authority and that he was provided 
full administrative due process. 

On 15 October 2014, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 
30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office. (Exhibit C).


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 an error or injustice.  We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include his 
rebuttal response, 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 for us to 
conclude that such action is warranted.  Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-05667 in Executive Session on under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Dec 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Oct 14.