RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03522 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. His discharge was inequitable because it was based on one 
isolated incident during 13 years and 7 months of honorable 
service. 

 

2. He was informed that his medical condition is a result of his 
military service and he is seeking medical attention for this 
disability. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provide copies of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty; VA Form 21-22, Appointment of Veterans Service 
Organization as Claimant’s Representative and medical records. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 16 Aug 74, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. 

 

On 9 Jan 88, the applicant was notified of his commander’s 
intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under 
the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of 
Airmen, for Drug Abuse. The applicant acknowledged receipt of 
the notification of discharge. The specific reasons for the 
proposed action were: 

 

1) On or about 13 Feb 87 to 2 Mar 87, the applicant received an 
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for 
wrongful use of marijuana. For this misconduct, the applicant 
received a suspended reduction from the grade of staff sergeant 
to sergeant. 

 


2) On 10 Sep 87, the applicant tested positive for 
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) during a random urinalysis test. 

 

3) On or about 10 Sep 87, the applicant received another Article 
15, UCMJ, for wrongful use of marijuana. For this misconduct, 
the applicant received a reduction to the grade of sergeant, 
with a new date of rank of 8 Jan 88, and forfeiture of $200 pay 
per month for two months. 

 

On 13 Jan 88, the applicant after consulting with counsel, 
offered a conditional waiver to waive his right to an 
administrative discharge board hearing contingent upon receiving 
no less than a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. 
Contrary to the advice of the Staff Judge Advocate, the 
applicant’s commander recommended his service be characterized 
as general (under honorable conditions). 

 

On 24 Mar 88, the applicant tendered an unconditional waiver of 
his right to appear before an administrative discharge board. 

 

On 1 Apr 88, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and 
found it legally sufficient to support separation and 
recommended that he receive an UOTHC discharge without probation 
and rehabilitation. The special court-martial (SPCM) convening 
authority recommended the discharge authority to accept the 
unconditional waiver tendered by the applicant. 

 

On 6 Apr 88, the commander Air Force District of Washington, 
concurred with the recommendation and directed an UOTHC 
discharge without the opportunity for probation and 
rehabilitation. On 21 Apr 88, the applicant was discharged from 
the Air Force with an UOTHC discharge in the grade of senior 
airman. He served 13 years and 7 months of total active duty 
service. 

 

On 5 Jan 12, the applicant was offered an opportunity to provide 
information pertaining to his activities since leaving the 
service (Exhibit C). 

 

In response to the request the applicant provided a personal 
letter. The applicant states he made several trips home due to 
the deaths of three family members (brother, wife’s sister and 
mother) within a seventh month period. It was a very stressful 
time in his life, so he started smoking marijuana to deal with 
the grief. He tested positive in a random drug test and within 
a few weeks of the test, he was selected for promotion to the 
grade of technical sergeant. 

 

Since leaving the military, he has worked as a medical lab 
technician and enrolled in the Springfield Putnam licensed 
practical nursing (LPN) program, where he graduated at the top 
of his class in 1994. Currently, he is working at Physicians 
Healthcare in Longmeadow, MA as a visiting nurse, where he 


visits patients in their homes and assists with their medical 
needs. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. We have noted the 
information provided by the applicant related to his post 
service activities. However, we do not find this evidence 
sufficient to warrant favorable consideration of the applicant’s 
request based on clemency. 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 that the evidence presented did not 
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 Docket Number BC-
2011-03522 in Executive Session on 10 Apr 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 


 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Aug 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. SAF/MRBC, Letter, dated 5 Jan 12. 

 Exhibit D. Applicant’s Letter, dated 30 Jan 12. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair