RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04270 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was going through a lot of hardships and problems at the time 
of his discharge. He used marijuana as a coping mechanism at 
some point, which ended his career. He was going through a 
tremendous amount of physical and emotional stress, marriage 
problems, health issues, financial issues, and was a victim of a 
burglary. He was later diagnosed with chronic Post Traumatic 
Stress Syndrome (PTSD) with Moderate Depression by the Department 
of Veteran Affairs (DVA). 

 

He was a sharp, well-performing airman who lost control when he 
was managing about seven additional duties along with handling 
his personal issues. 

 

A copy of the applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, 
is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

Documents leading to the applicant’s discharge are unavailable 
for review; however, his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty, indicates the applicant was 
discharged from the Regular Air Force effective 17 April 2009 
with a UOTHC discharge, and a narrative reason for separation of 
“Triable by Court-Martial.” 

 

On 14 September 2011, the Air Force Discharge Review Board 
(AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade 
his discharge. 

 

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s 
military service record, are contained in the evaluation by the 
Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C. 

 

On 26 March 2013, the applicant was given an opportunity to 
submit comments about his post-service activities (Exhibit E). 


In response, the applicant provided a character reference, 
Bachelor of Science certificate, Department of Veteran Affairs 
(DAV) membership form, and an American Legion Certificate of 
Nomination. 

 

The applicant’s response is included with his rebuttal at Exhibit 
F. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states that after reviewing 
the applicant’s personnel records, their office was unable to 
find any documentation regarding his discharge. There is 
insufficient evidence contained within his military record to 
confirm the circumstances and facts surrounding his discharge; 
however, there is a presumption of regularity in which the 
applicant was afforded due process and the discharge was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge regulation. In his appeal to the AFDRB, the 
applicant claims he was told his discharge would automatically be 
upgraded after six months. Although their office cannot confirm 
what the applicant may have been told regarding an upgrade to his 
discharge service characterization, there is no automatic upgrade 
of service characterization due to the passage of time and each 
request for upgrade is decided by evidence presented by the 
applicant and the individual merits of the case. 

 

The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors 
or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing that 
would warrant a change to his characterization of service. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He was discharged because he had a single positive drug test for 
marijuana, which he regrets. This life-changing event was the 
only offense in his six and a half years of military service. 

 

He has made numerous efforts to personally manage his stress 
disorder, continues to better himself as a person, and is a 
positive citizen. He has been able to secure numerous job 
positions outside the healthcare environment, because he vowed to 
stay away from trauma scenes. 

 

The applicant’s complete rebuttal, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


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 opinion and recommendation 
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the interest of 
justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency 
and considered the applicant's overall post-service activities 
and accomplishments; however, the evidence submitted was not 
sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought 
on that basis. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2012-04270 in Executive Session on 18 June 2013, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-04270 was considered: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Aug 12, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 3 Dec 12. 

Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Dec 12. 

Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Mar 13, w/atch. 

Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, not dated, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair