RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01452 

 INDEX CODE: A94.05/06 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

While it is not readily apparent, it appears the applicant is 
requesting that his General (Under Honorable Conditions) 
discharge be upgraded to honorable and his former rank of 
technical sergeant (E-6) be restored. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His discharge for drug abuse was unfair. He has had over 40 
random drug tests throughout his career and, until the test in 
question, the results were always clean. He has worked for the 
Orange County Sheriff’s Department for over 26 years and they 
also conduct random drug tests on their employees. He was left 
out to dry by the Air Force Reserve. He requested another test 
to prove his innocence, but his commander denied his request 
outright. His assigned defense counsel was ineffective as she 
was stationed at Robins AFB, GA, nearly 3,000 miles away. The 
distance, combined with the fact that she was responsible to 
serve as counsel for every member of the Air Force Reserve, made 
it impossible for her to mount an effective defense. His case 
was rushed through because his enlistment was about to expire. 
He was not made aware that he could have traveled to Robins AFB, 
GA to be present for the hearing. As for his demotion, his 
right to a fair hearing was violated when he was not notified of 
the action, nor provided an opportunity to speak in his defense. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides an expanded 
statement and a copy of his retired pay summary. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted 
in the Air Force Reserve on 25 May 85 as a prior service 


applicant and was progressively promoted to the grade of 
technical sergeant (E-6), effective and with a date of rank of 
1 Dec 97. 

 

On 26 Jun 04, the applicant was selected for a random urinalysis 
and provided a sample which tested positive for methamphetamine. 
Following the positive result, he was administratively demoted 
to the grade of senior airman (E-4), effective 25 Mar 05, for 
failure to fulfill noncommissioned officer responsibilities in 
accordance with AFI 36-2503, Administrative Demotion of Airmen. 

 

On 11 Apr 05, the applicant’s commander notified him of his 
intent to recommend his discharge from the Air Force Reserve for 
commission of a serious offense – drug abuse. He acknowledged 
receipt and requested an administrative discharge board, while 
also applying for transfer to the Retired Reserve. 

 

On 21 Sep 05, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council 
(SAFPC) considered the applicant’s request for transfer to the 
Retired Reserve and recommended denial. SAFPC noted that even 
though he had completed a period of substantial service without 
any prior disciplinary problem, his use of methamphetamine as a 
noncommissioned officer was a serious offense that should be 
addressed by an administrative discharge board. The case was 
found legally sufficient and the Secretary’s designee 
disapproved his request on 22 Sep 05. 

 

On 11 Oct 05, the applicant received an Under Other Than 
Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge for commission of a 
serious offense – drug abuse. 

 

On 5 Feb 06, the applicant submitted a request to the Air Force 
Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) contesting the characterization 
of service, narrative reason and authority for separation, and 
the reenlistment eligibility (RE) code related to his 
administrative discharge. The AFDRB did not find sufficient 
evidence to substantiate a change to the narrative reason and 
authority for separation or RE code; however, they did find 
sufficient mitigation to warrant an upgrade of the discharge to 
general. Specifically, AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement 
Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, 
precludes a UOTHC service characterization based on conduct in 
the civilian community that does not affect the performance of 
military duties. AFI 36-3209 also requires that all UOTHC cases 
be reviewed by SAFPC and approved by the Secretary of the Air 
Force prior to being effected. In this case, the applicant’s 
discharge package was not forwarded for review or approved by 
the Secretary of the Air Force. 

 

On 15 Oct 07, the applicant was notified of the AFDRB decision 
and his 11 Oct 05 discharge was upgraded to General (Under 
Honorable Conditions) on 26 Nov 07. 

 


________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

This application was forwarded to AFRC/A1K on 28 Apr 10 for an 
advisory opinion. However, AFRC/A1K has failed to respond. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 warranting 
restoration of the applicant’s former grade or an upgrade of his 
discharge. After a thorough review of the evidence of record 
and the applicant’s complete submission, we are not convinced he 
has been the victim of an error or injustice. Other than his 
own assertions, he has provided no evidence which would lead us 
to believe the underlying basis for his administrative demotion 
and subsequent discharge was somehow insufficient, or that his 
commanders abused their discretionary authority. Therefore, in 
view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we conclude that no basis exists for us 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-2010-01452 in Executive Session on 26 Oct 10, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-01452 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Mar 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair