RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-02505
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The evidence against him is weak in comparison to his military 
performance.  The urinalysis administered was tainted.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air Force on 
7 May 1980.

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 are as follow:

	a.  On numerous occasions, the applicant failed to pay 
outstanding debt.

	b.  The applicant did write numerous worthless checks from 
1 September 1982 to 1 August 1984.  The applicant exhibited a 
continued pattern of financial irresponsibility which resulted 
in his placement on the control roster.

	c.  The applicant failed to support his wife and child from 
September 1984 until November 1984.




	d.  The applicant did wrongfully possess marijuana during 
the period July 1984 through 17 September 1984.  For this 
misconduct the applicant received a letter of reprimand (LOR).

	e.  On 18 October 1984, the applicant was derelict in the 
performance of his duties.  Further, on 19 October 1984, he 
failed to show at the time prescribed to his appointed place of 
duty.

He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged 
receipt of the notification.

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 recommendations and 
directed discharge with a UOTHC discharge.  The applicant was 
discharged on 1 February 1985.  He served 8 years, 7 months and 
29 days on active duty and credited with 3 years, 2 months and 
11 days of foreign service.

On 10 March 1988, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) 
considered and denied the applicant’s request that his UOTHC 
discharge be upgraded to general.  The board 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 (Exhibit B).

On 21 June 2014, a request for information pertaining to his 
post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for 
review and response 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, 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 in this application.


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-2014-02505 in Executive Session on 12 March 2015, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 June 2014.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 June 2014.