RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:			   DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05222

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2.	His narrative reason for discharge be changed.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had reconstructive foot surgery to stay in the military and 
become an officer.  After his surgery, he confided in his 
psychiatrist that he was considering whether to self-medicate in 
order to alleviate his pain.  The physiatrist breached the 
confidentiality agreement and informed the Office of Special 
Investigations.  

While recovering from surgery and heavily medicated, he was 
presented with paperwork to sign.  He thought his leaders had 
his best interests in mind, however, he was ultimately 
discharged with an under other than honorable conditions 
discharge.  He was also left to live with chronic pain and no 
medical assistance for the rest of his life.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a 15-page 
personal statement and documentation from his master personnel 
record.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 December 
2000.  On 24 November 2003, his commander preferred charges 
against him for wrongfully using marijuana and the wrongful 
distribution of a controlled substance, in violation of Article 
112a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

On 1 March 2004, the applicant, under advisement of counsel, 
requested that he be discharged from the Air Force in lieu of 
trial by court-martial.  The request was approved on 4 March 
2004.  Pursuant to dual action processing, the applicant’s case 
was reviewed by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel 
Council.  The Board determined while the applicant indicated his 
use of marijuana was for the purpose of pain relief, his medical 
condition did not impair his ability to determine the difference 
between right and wrong.  They found no causal relationship 
between his violation of the UCMJ and his medical condition and 
concluded the approved administrative discharge was appropriate.  

The applicant was discharged on 11 February 2005 and his service 
was characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  His 
narrative reason for separation was listed as triable by court-
martial. 

On 16 February 2012, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied 
the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  The applicant faced one charge of 
wrongful use of marijuana and two specifications of wrongful 
distribution of a controlled substance, in violation of Article 
112a, UCMJ.  The seriousness of the offenses warranted the 
preferral of charges to trial by a general court-martial.  If 
convicted, the maximum permissible punishment was a dishonorable 
discharge, confinement of 32 years, forfeiture of all pay and 
allowances and reduction to the grade of E-1.  The applicant 
requested discharge in lieu of court-martial and in that 
request, he acknowledged that he could be separated with an 
under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was 
afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel and advised of 
the possible consequences that discharge characterization.

Based on the documentation in the applicant’s master personnel 
file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and 
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant 
did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustice 
that occurred during the discharge process that warrants a 
change to his characterization of discharge.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He submitted his application with medical documentation and 
requests the Boards consideration of the medications that he was 
under during the period in question.  He attempted to inform the 
Board of how these medications affected him; he can also provide 
a list of the side effects to show how the medication changed 
his body chemistry.

The applicant’s complete response, 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 find no evidence of an error or injustice 
that occurred during the discharge process.  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. 
While the applicant contends the record is unjust because he was 
heavily medicated when making decisions regarding this 
discharge, under the advisement of counsel, he voluntarily 
requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial at which 
time he acknowledged that he understood the adverse nature of 
service characterized as UOTHC and the possible consequences 
thereof.  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, or 
unduly harsh. Additionally, in the absence of any evidence 
concerning his post-service activities, we do not find it would 
be in the interest of justice to upgrade the discharge on the 
basis of clemency.  Therefore, in view of the above and in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which 
to recommend granting the relief sought.

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-2012-05222 in Executive Session on 1 August 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Oct 12, w/atchs. 
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 8 Jan 13.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Feb 13.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, 11 Feb 13, w/atchs.