RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00232 

 INDEX CODE: 110.02 

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded. In the alternative, he be issued a DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, for his 
first term of service in which he did serve honorably. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was never given the opportunity to dispute the charges which 
led to his discharge. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his DD 
Form 214. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
entered active duty on 29 March 1973 and was progressively 
promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) with a date of rank 
of 1 August 1980. 

 

On 27 May 1982, the applicant received Article 15 punishment for 
the wrongful possession, use, and transfer of marijuana in the 
hashish form during the period 1 June 1980 to 21 March 1982. 
Punishment imposed consisted of a reduction in grade to the rank 
of sergeant (E-4) and forfeiture of $427 per month for two 
months. On 28 June 1982, the applicant received a reduction in 
grade to senior airman (E-4) for vacation of his noncommissioned 
officer (NCO) status for drug abuse. 

 

On 13 July 1982, the applicant was notified of his commander’s 
intent to recommend him for a UOTHC discharge for drug abuse. 
The applicant acknowledged receipt of his commander’s intent, 
consulted counsel, and, on 9 August 1982, offered a conditional 
waiver of his rights associated with an administrative discharge 
board hearing contingent on his receipt of a general discharge. 


On 24 August 1982, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate recommended 
the commander reject the conditional waiver due to the length of 
time, frequency, and types of the applicant’s drug involvement as 
an NCO. On 30 August 1982, his commander rejected the 
applicant’s conditional waiver and directed he submit an 
unconditional waiver or demand an administrative discharge. On 
20 September 1982, the applicant submitted a response stating he 
did not waive his right to a hearing before an administrative 
discharge board and that he would submit statements in his own 
behalf. On 22 October 1982, the applicant submitted another 
statement to his commander indicating he waived his right to a 
hearing before an administrative discharge board and that he 
would not be submitting statements in his own behalf. 

 

On 28 October 1982, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate found the 
case to be legally sufficient and recommended the commander 
accept the unconditional waiver and that the applicant be 
discharged with an UOTHC discharge without probation or 
rehabilitation. On 6 December 1982, the discharge authority 
accepted the applicant’s unconditional waiver and directed he be 
discharged with an UOTHC discharge without probation and 
rehabilitation. 

 

On 13 December 1982, the applicant was discharged from active 
duty with a UOTHC discharge, and a narrative reason for 
separation of “Misconduct, Drug Abuse.” He served 9 years, 
8 months and 15 days on active duty. 

 

On 22 May 1984, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) 
considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his 
discharge to general or honorable. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated that on the 
basis of the data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest 
record pertaining to the applicant. 

 

On 21 July 2010, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit 
comments about his post service activities (Exhibit C). As of 
this date, this office has received no response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. Furthermore, we do 
not find clemency is appropriate in this case since the applicant 
has not provided any evidence concerning his post-service 
activities. The applicant indicates that if his discharge cannot 
be upgraded, that as an alternative, a DD Form 214 be issued for 
his first term of honorable service. However, we note the 
requested DD Form 214 has already been issued for his period of 
active duty service from 29 March 1973 through 9 February 1978. 
He indicated his concurrence of the DD Form 214 by his initials 
in the remarks section. Based on the foregoing, we find no basis 
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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-00232 in Executive Session on 21 September 2010, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair 

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member 

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-00232: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Dec 09, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 May 10, w/atch. 

 

 

 

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

Panel Chair