AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00479 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
    
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1.  His  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be 
upgraded to “Honorable.” 
 
2.  His Reenlistment (RE) code be changed from 2G, which denotes 
“Participating  in  Substance  Abuse  Reorientation  and  Treatment 
program for drugs, or has failed to complete reorientation,” to 
an RE code of 1, which denotes “Reenlistment Eligible.” 
 
3.  His  narrative  reason  for  separation  be  changed  from 
“Misconduct-Drug Abuse,” to “Convenience of the Government.” 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
It has been almost 27 years since his separation and this is his 
second attempt to upgrade his discharge. 
 
He made a terrible mistake and has paid the price for 27 years. 
 
His  punishment  was  too  harsh  and  much  worse  than  most  people 
received for the same offense.   
 
He has been a good citizen and has never been in trouble of any 
kind and does not use drugs. 
 
He has been married for over 22 years and has a son in college. 
 
He was 21 years old and immature and made a terrible decision.  
 
He is praying for a second chance. 
 
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
DD  Form  214,  Certificate  of  Release  or  Discharge  from  Active 
Duty;  DD  Form  4/l,  Enlistment/Reenlistment  Document  –  Armed 
Forces of the United States; Standard Form 88, Report of Medical 
Examination, Medical and Dental History, Letters of support from 
his wife, and a clinical psychologist, and a personal statement. 
 
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 8 Mar 1983, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 
 
On  15  Apr  1985,  his  commander  notified  him  that  he  was 
recommending he be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, 
Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen.    The  specific  reason  for 
this  action  was  his  abuse  of  drugs  as  evidenced  by  a  urine 
specimen  he  submitted  on  20  Feb  1985  which  subsequently  tested 
positive  for  the  presence  of  THC,  the  active  ingredient  in 
marijuana,  for  which  he  received  non-judicial  punishment  on 
4 Apr 1985. 
 
On  15  Apr  1985,  the  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the 
discharge notification and provided statements from himself and 
his supervisor. 
 
On  23  Apr  1985,  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  (SJA)  found  the 
discharge legally sufficient. 
 
On 26 Apr 1985, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force, 
with  a  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  and  a  RE 
code  of  “2G,”  “Participating  in  Substance  Abuse  Reorientation 
and  Treatment  program  for  drugs,  or  has  failed  to  complete 
reorientation.”    He  served  2  years,  1 month,  and  19  days  of 
total active service. 
 
A check of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) files revealed 
no negative information (Exhibit C).  On 19 Jun 2012, a request 
for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for 
review  and  comment  within  30  days  (Exhibit  D).    The  applicant 
responded  on  26  Jun  2012  and  provided  copies  of  his  résumé, 
college degree, offer of employment letter, and his drug screen 
results. 
 
His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his 
character  of  service,  separation  code  and  narrative  reason  for 
separation.  DPSOS states based on the documentation on file in 
his master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with 
the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge 
instruction  and  was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge 
authority.    He  did  not  submit  any  evidence  or  identify  any 
errors or injustices in the discharge processing.  
 
The  characterization  of  the  discharge  the  applicant  received 
should  not  be  changed.    AFR  39-10  states,  “Airmen  who  abuse 
drugs  one  or  more  times  are  subject  to  discharge  for 
misconduct.”  The  regulation  defines  drug  abuse  as  “illegal, 

 

2 

wrongful,  or  improper  use,  possession,  sale,  transfer,  or 
introduction  onto  a  military  installation  of  any  drug.”    While 
retention  of  first  term-first  time  drug  abusers  is  sometimes 
appropriate, it is done only when the airman’s overall record is 
so meritorious it would be in the best interest of the Air Force 
to  retain  the  individual.    The  applicant  was  counseled  and 
disciplined for other failures to adhere to Air Force standards.  
His record was not so meritorious as to make a general discharge 
clearly inappropriate. 
 
The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit F. 
 
HQ AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant's request for a 
change of RE code.  DPSOA states the applicant was separated for 
Misconduct-Drug  Abuse  with  a  general  (under  honorable 
conditions) character of service.  He received a RE code of 2G. 
However,  upon  being  approved  for  involuntary  discharge  his  RE 
code  should  have  been  changed  to  2B,  which  denotes,  “Approved 
Involuntary Separation with Less Than Honorable Discharge.” 
 
RE  code  2B  is  the  correct  RE  code.    If  the  Board  upgrades  the 
applicant’s character of service to honorable his RE code would 
automatically  change  to  2C,  which  denotes  "Involuntarily 
separated  under  AFR  39-10  with  an  honorable  discharge."  
Additionally, if the RE codes 2B, and 2C were bypassed, the next 
RE code that would apply to applicant would be 2G.  DPSOA will 
provide the applicant a corrected copy of his DD Form 214 with 
an RE code of 2B, unless otherwise directed by the Board. 
 
The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit G. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
He is disheartened and fails to understand how he can be labeled 
a drug abuser after one failed urinalysis in 1985.  It appears 
that the decision is already made and this is just a formality.  
He vehemently asserts that he is not a drug abuser.  He has been 
married for 22 years and has a 21 year old son in college.  He 
has  also  received  a  college  degree.    He  has  never  been  in 
trouble with the law, owns two homes and pays his bills on time. 
 
He  asserts  that  he  does  not  take  drugs  and  never  did  abuse 
drugs.    He  made  an  enormous,  one  time  mistake  in  1985.    He 
cannot  change  the  past.    He  admitted  to  that  mistake  and  paid 
for  it  and  asks  the  Board  to  consider  an  upgrade  to  his 
discharge. 
 
His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit I. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

3 

 
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; to include his response to the Air Force evaluations, 
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  offense  committed.    In  the  interest  of  justice,  we 
considered  upgrading  the  discharge  and  changing  the  narrative 
reason for separation based on clemency; however, we do not find 
the  evidence  presented  is  sufficient  to  compel  us  to  recommend 
granting  the  relief  sought  on  that  basis.    Since  the  applicant 
was  separated  with  a  general  (under  honorable  conditions) 
discharge, we agree with DPSOA’s recommendation that his RE code 
should  be  changed  to  2B  to  accurately  reflect  the  type  of 
separation  he  received.    Aside  from  the  administrative 
correction  noted  above  and  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the 
contrary,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to  recommend  granting 
further relief. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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  this  application 
in  Executive  Session  on  2  Aug  2012  and  21  Aug  2012,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 

 Panel Chair 
 Member 
 Member 

 

4 

 
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-00479: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jan 2012, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report, dated 23 May 2012. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Jun 2012. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Jun 2012, w/atch. 
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 9 Apr 2012. 
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 30 Apr 2012. 
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, 11 May 2012. 
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, 18 May 2012, w/atchs. 
 
 
 
 
                                    
                                   Panel Chair 
 

 

 

5