DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-02200 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
   
 
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  characterization  of 
service be upgraded to honorable. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
After the six-month wait he requested the discharge be upgraded 
for time allotted.  There was no response given and, because of 
this,  he  received  poor  service  in  the  world  and  in  the 
workforce.   
 
The  applicant  did  not  provide  any  documents  in  support  of  his 
request.   
 
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
According  to  documents  extracted  from  the  automated  records 
management  system  (ARMS)  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular 
Air  Force  on  15 December 1999.  He  served  as  a  personnel 
journeyman and was progressively promoted to the grade of senior 
airman, E-4.    
 
On 18 October 2004, the applicant’s commander notified him that 
she  was  recommending  him  for  discharge  under  the  provisions  of 
Air  Force  Policy  Directive  (AFPD)  36-32,  Military  Retirements 
and  Separations  and  Air  Force  Instruction  (AFI)  36-3208 
Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen,  Chapter  5,  Section  C, 
Defective  Enlistment,  paragraph  5.54.    The  specific  reason  for 
the  discharge  recommendation  was  the  applicant’s  receipt  of 
nonjudicial  punishment  (NJP)  in  the  form  of  an  Article  15,  on 
4 August  2004,  and  15  September  2004,  for  one  (each) 
specification  in  violation  of  Article  112a,  Uniform  Code  of 
Military  Justice  (UCMJ),  Wrongful  Use,  Possession,  etc.,  of 
Controlled  Substances.    For  the  4  August  2004  incident,  the 
applicant’s  punishment  consisted  of  reduction  to  the  grade  of 

airman  first  class,  E-3,  suspended  forfeitures  of  $792.00  pay 
per  month  for  two  months,  and  a  reprimand.    For  the 
15 September 2004  incident  the  applicant’s  punishment  consisted 
of reduction to the grade of airman, E-2, and a reprimand.   
 
On  18  October  2004,  the  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the 
notification  of  discharge  and  was  advised  of  his  right  to 
consult  counsel  and  submit  statements  for  consideration.  He 
declined  to  consult  counsel  or  to  submit  a  statement  on  his 
behalf.   
 
Subsequent  to  the  file  being  found  legally  sufficient,  the 
discharge  authority  approved  the  separation  and  directed  the 
applicant  be  discharged  with  a  general  (under  honorable 
conditions) characterization of service.   
 
The applicant was released from active duty on 16 November 2004 
and was credited with 4 years, 11 months, and 2 days of active 
duty service.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial.  DPSOS states they cannot confirm 
what  the  applicant  may  have  been  told  regarding  an  upgrade  to 
his service characterization; but, there is no automatic upgrade 
of  service  characterization  due  to  the  passage  of  time.    Each 
request  for  upgrade  is  decided  by  evidence  presented  by  the 
applicant and on the individual merits of the case.   
 
AFI 36-3208, chapter 5, section h – misconduct, paragraph 5.54, 
states that airmen who abuse drugs one or more times are subject 
to  discharge  for  misconduct.    Paragraph  5.54.1.,  defines  drug 
abuse as “illegal, wrongful, or improper use, possession, sale, 
transfer,  or  introduction  onto  a  military  installation  of  any 
drug.”  A drug is any controlled substance as defined by Title 
21,  United  States  Code,  (U.S.C.)  section  812,  or  any  other 
substance  other  than  alcohol  ingested  into  the  body  to  alter 
mood or function.   
 
Based  on  the  documentation  on  file  in  the  master  personnel 
records,  the  applicant’s  discharge  was  consistent  with  the 
procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge 
instruction  and  was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge 
authority.    The  applicant  did  not  submit  any  evidence  or 
identify any errors or injustices in the discharge processing.   
 
The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
AFPC/DPSOA  addresses  the  applicant’s  reentry  (RE)  code.    DPSOA 
states the applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects the correct RE code 
per  AFI  36-2606,  Reenlistment  in  the  United  States  Air  Force, 

 

 
2 

chapter  5,  based  on  his  involuntary  discharge  with  a  general 
character of service.   
 
The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
Copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the 
applicant on 7 August 2012 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  To date, this office has not received a 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  agree  with  the  opinions  and 
recommendations  of  the  Air  Force  offices  of  primary 
responsibility  and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our 
conclusion  that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an 
error  or  injustice.    Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to 
the contrary, 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. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

 
3 

 
  

 
 

, Panel Chair 
, Member 
, Member 

The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  this  application 
BC-2012-02200  in  Executive  Session  on  18  December  2012,  under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149 dated 22 May 2012. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 21 June 2012. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 13 July 2012. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR dated 7 August 2012. 
 
 
 
 
                                    
                                   Panel Chair 
 
 

 

 
4