RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-04705

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His character of service be changed from General, (Under 
Honorable Conditions), to Honorable.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would like to receive his Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefit 
so he can return to school.  

The applicant did not submit any supporting documents.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

1.  According to copies of documents extracted from the 
Automated Records Management System (ARMS), the applicant 
enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 July 2005.  

2.  On 21 April 2008, his commander notified him that he was 
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force for 
Misconduct: Minor Disciplinary Infractions and Misconduct: Drug 
Abuse, 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, 
paragraph 5.50.2. and 5.54.  The specific reason for the 
discharge recommendation was:

	a.  Between, on or about 22 December 2007 and on or about 
7 March 2008, at his location of assignment, the applicant was 
involved in the following misconduct:

		(1)  Wrongful use of oxycodone/oxymorphone, a Schedule II 
controlled substance. 

	(2)  Intentionally consumed alcohol while taking the 
prescription medications Vicodin, Tramadol, and Naproxen with 
the knowledge that consuming alcohol would increase the effects 
of the prescription medications.  

	b.  For these acts of misconduct, the applicant received 
punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ which consisted of a 
reduction to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C) and 15 days 
extra duty.  

	c.  On or about 31 March 2008, the applicant had an 
appointment with the squadron commander in his service dress.  
He arrived in a dirty uniform with glue on the sleeve.  For this 
misconduct he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 
1 April 2008.

	d.  On or about 18 April 2006, the applicant failed to report 
to work at 0600.  When he was contacted by phone at 0900, he 
claimed to be sick and did not report to work until 1030.  For 
this misconduct, he received a Record of Individual Counseling 
(ROC) on 27 April 2006  

3.  On 21 April 2008, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
commander’s intent to discharge him and his right to consult 
counsel, submit statements on his own behalf or waive either of 
these rights.  On 23 April 2008, the applicant opted to submit a 
statement on his behalf but did not indicate whether he would 
consult counsel or waive his right to consult counsel.  

4.  Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient the 
discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed the 
applicant be discharged from the Air Force for Misconduct: Drug 
Abuse and Minor Disciplinary Infractions.  The applicant was 
discharged on 6 May 2008, with a narrative reason for separation 
of “misconduct”, and was credited with 2 years, 9 months and 
18 days of active duty service.  

5.  On 19 March 2009, the applicant submitted an appeal for 
upgrade of his discharge to the Air Force Discharge Review Board 
(AFDRB).  The applicant was offered and declined a personal 
appearance with counsel, before the AFDRB.  In his application, 
the applicant stated he was advised that after six months he 
would be eligible for an upgrade of his discharge.  While a 
discharge may be upgraded after six months, the upgrade is not 
automatic.  A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and 
the Board can establish that an inequity or impropriety took 
place at the time of the discharge.  After a thorough review of 
the record, the Board found no evidence to justify an upgrade of 
the discharge characterization, reason for discharge or the 
reentry code.  

6.  On 17 June 2010, the AFDRB concluded that the discharge was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority and the applicant was provided full 
administrative due process.  In view of the forgoing findings 
the Board further concluded there was no legal or equitable 
basis for upgrade of discharge, thus, the applicant’s discharge 
should not be changed.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1.  AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR states due to the 
applicant's failure to obey orders and regulations such as 
failing to report to work on time and failing to report to his 
place of duty at all, he demonstrated that he is not able or 
willing to meet Air Force standards.  Airmen are subject to 
discharge when there is evidence of one or more acts or patterns 
of misconduct.  Based on the evidence, there was a legally 
sufficient basis for discharge.  The Air Force's policy against 
drug abuse is clear - zero tolerance.  

2.  AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.49, (Minor Disciplinary 
Infractions), states that a pattern of misconduct consisting 
solely of infractions in the current enlistment makes an Airman 
subject to discharge.  The applicant  received an ROC and LOR in 
addition to receiving  Article 15 punishment.  When more than 
one basis for discharge exists, Para 6.19.4, requires the 
separation authority to determine the primary reason (basis) for 
separation.  Of the two available bases for discharge, the 
applicant's commander designated Drug Abuse as the primary basis 
for separation.  

3.  The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any 
errors or injustices in the processing of his separation.  Based 
on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, 
the applicant's discharge to include his narrative reason for 
separation was appropriately administered and was properly 
reflected on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty. 

The complete AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 11 January 2013 for review and comment within 30 
days (Exhibit D).  To date, a response has not been received.  

________________________________________________________________

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.  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.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application 
in Executive Session on 23 July 2013, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

			, Panel Chair
      , Member
			, Member




The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2012-04705:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149 dated 1 September 2012.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 19 December 2012.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 January 2013.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR
1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 3700
Joint Base Andrews NAF Washington, MD 20762




Dear:

	Reference your application submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2603 (Section 1552, 
10 USC), AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04705. 

	After careful consideration of your application and military records, the Board determined 
that the evidence you presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice.  
Accordingly, the Board denied your application.

	You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence for consideration by the 
Board.  In the absence of such additional evidence, a further review of your application is not 
possible.

	BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL CHAIR




				                                   
				                                   Chief Examiner
				                                   Air Force Board for Correction
				                                   of Military Records

Attachment:
Record of Board Proceedings


4