RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00728
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2.  His narrative reason for separation (Misconduct – Drug 
Abuse) be changed.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was based on a one time isolated incident.  He 
believes his discharge to be unjust.

In support of the applicant’s appeal, he provides documents 
extracted from his military personnel records.

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant with prior service reenlisted in the Regular Air 
Force on 5 July 1985.

The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to 
recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct – Drug Abuse).  The specific 
reasons follow:

	  a.  The applicant on diverse occasions between 1 October 
1985 and 31 December 1985 wrongfully use marijuana.  For this 
misconduct he received an Article 15, placed on the control 
roster, his Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) status was vacated, 
and he was enrolled in the drug rehabilitation program.






	  b.  The applicant did on or about 23 October 1986 wrongfully 
use marijuana.  For this misconduct he received a Letter of 
Reprimand.

He was advised of his rights in this matter and elected not to 
provide a statement on his own behalf.  In a legal review of the 
case file, the staff judge advocate found the case legally 
sufficient and recommended discharge.  The discharge authority 
concurred with the recommendation.  The applicant was discharged 
with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge on 10 
March 1987.  He served 1 year, 8 months and 6 days on active 
duty with the current enlistment and 3 years, 1 month and 7 days 
on active duty with his prior enlistment.

________________________________________________________________
_

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 and narrative reason 
for separation were 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, based on the evidence 
before us, we find no basis to grant clemency at this time.  
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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an 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-2013-00728 in Executive Session on 5 November 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 December 2012, w/atch.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.





2


3