Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03609
Original file (BC-2012-03609.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03609 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

After five years of honorable service he went to the substance 
abuse clinic to get help knowing he had Tetrahydrocannabinol 
(THC) in his system. After completing rehabilitation, he was 
notified that he failed his urinalysis and decided to leave the 
Air Force. He was wrong and regrets his decision. He wanted to 
continue serving his country. He is currently clean, sober, and 
employed at the XXXXXXX International Airport. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 25 Jun 1978, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force 
for a period of four years. 

 

On 26 May 1983, he was discharged for the purpose of 
reenlistment. 

 

On 27 May 1983, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air 
Force. 

 

On 3 Oct 1985, the applicant’s supervisor recommended his 
Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) status be vacated and his 
reenlistment be denied due to his failure to abstain from drug 
use. On or about 3 Oct 1985, the commander concurred with the 
supervisor’s recommendation. 

 

On 4 Oct 1985, the applicant acknowledged receipt of 
denial/vacation of his appointment to NCO status and stated he 
did not intend to appeal this decision. 

 

On 27 Mar 1986, he was discharged from the Air Force, with 
service characterized as under other than honorable conditions 


with a narrative reason for separation of Misconduct – Drug 
Abuse. 

 

He served approximately 8 years and 9 months of net active 
service. 

 

On 11 Mar 2013, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C), as of this date, no response has been received by 
this office. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 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 offenses committed. In the interest of 
justice, we considered upgrading the discharge 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. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis upon which 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 21 May 2013, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-03609: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Aug 2012, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Mar 2013, w/atch. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03770

    Original file (BC-2012-03770.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03770 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. 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 in the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02448

    Original file (BC 2013 02448.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to reflect his rank as “SGT” (sergeant), instead of “SRA” (senior airman). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01955

    Original file (BC-2012-01955.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He assumed his discharge was upgraded until he requested his records on 2 Nov 2011. 2 On or about 5 Sep 1986, he failed to perform quality On or about 16 Oct 1987, he failed to report to work. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02681

    Original file (BC-2006-02681.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02681 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 5 Mar 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason (Misconduct-Drug Use) for his 1983 honorable discharge be removed from his DD Form 214. On 18 Nov 83, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00728

    Original file (BC-2013-00728.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00728 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His narrative reason for separation (Misconduct – Drug Abuse) be changed. ________________________________________________________________ _ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02269

    Original file (BC-2004-02269.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D & E). The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulation and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of the applicant’s appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05093

    Original file (BC 2012 05093.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05093 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be awarded Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) status. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03589

    Original file (BC-2012-03589.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03589 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of “2X” (First-term, second-term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program) and separation code of “JBK” (less than six years of active service), be changed to allow...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02614

    Original file (BC-2005-02614.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The base legal office reviewed the case, found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended applicant receive an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states, based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00852

    Original file (BC-2005-00852.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority, the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, nor did he provide any facts warranting a change to his DD Form 214. The DPPRS 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 25 Mar 05, for...