Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00855
Original file (BC 2014 00855.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00855
			COUNSEL:  NONE
				HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is a productive citizen and had a lot of ups and downs.  It 
does not hurt to try and upgrade his discharge with the 
situation on marijuana today.  

The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider 
his untimely application because he is asking for forgiveness.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 28 Mar 74, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

On 6 Sep 83, he received an Article 15, Uniformed Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongful use of marijuana within the 
territorial limits of the United States between o/a 1 Jul 83-
22 Jul 83.  He was reduced in rank to sergeant, forfeited $75 
per month for two months and given 45 days extra duty.   

According to his application for review of discharge dated 
28 Feb 84, facts leading up to his discharge indicate on 13 Oct 
83, his squadron commander notified him he was recommending he 
be discharged UOTHC for drug abuse, per AFR 39-10, Airman 
Separation Manual, paragraph 5-49c.  Between on or about 1 Jul 
83 and 22 Jul 83, he wrongfully used marijuana.  

On 14 Oct 83, he signed a statement waiving his right to an 
administrative discharge board and declined to submit statements 
on his own behalf.  

On 25 Oct 83, the Staff Judge Advocate found it legally 
sufficient.

On 27 Oct 83, his group commander recommended he be discharged 
UOTHC discharge without probation or rehabilitation.  

On 28 Nov 83, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and 
found it legally sufficient. 

On 8 Dec 83 the discharge authority approved the UOTHC discharge 
per AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-49c without probation or 
rehabilitation.  

On 14 Dec 83, the applicant received an UOHTC discharge, and was 
credited with 9 years, 8 months and 17 days of active service. 

On 28 Apr 14, 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 an 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 
authority.  The applicant has provided no evidence which would 
lead us to believe the characterization of 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 characterization of the 
applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, after 
considering his overall record of service, the infractions which 
led to his administrative separation and the lack of post-
service information we are not persuaded that an upgrade is 
warranted.  In view of this and in the absence of evidence to 
the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting 
the relief sought. 


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and the 
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of 
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this 
application.


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-00855 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Feb 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Clemency Information Bulletin, dated 28 Apr 14.	


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03301

    Original file (BC-2007-03301.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03301 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 Oct 78, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02349

    Original file (BC 2014 02349.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02349 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. On 27 Mar 84, the discharge authority approved the Conditional Waiver and ordered a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01637

    Original file (BC 2014 01637.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01637 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. 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. In the interest of justice, we considered...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03391

    Original file (BC-2002-03391.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 Feb 83, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ for wrongful possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. After consulting counsel, applicant requested a hearing before an administrative discharge board and elected to submit statements on his own behalf. The board recommended that he be discharged because of misconduct with an under other that honorable conditions discharge and that he not be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05845

    Original file (BC 2012 05845.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 Dec 83, the applicant was discharged with service characterized as UOTHC in the grade of airman basic. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: By letter dated 5 May 13, the applicant states he has two reasons for seeking an upgrade to his discharge. While the applicant contends his discharge was unjust because of two TBI injuries, and states that he was...

  • AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0128

    Original file (FD2002-0128.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD fa NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN lini. CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE | pp 002-0128 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge honorable. The Board finds the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01861

    Original file (BC-2007-01861.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant has not shown the characterization of his discharge was contrary to the provisions of AFR 39-10, Separation of Airmen, (extract copy of applicable portion attached as Exhibit D). 812.” Notwithstanding the absence of error or injustice, the Board has the prerogative to grant relief on the basis of clemency if so inclined. Exhibit C. Negative FBI Report, dated 20 Jun 07.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00394

    Original file (BC 2014 00394.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He would very much like the Board to review his file and upgrade his discharge. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to recommend granting relief on that basis. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance;...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03507

    Original file (BC-2003-03507.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 7 Oct 92, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable. They also noted applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing and provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge. After careful consideration of the evidence of record, we found no evidence that the actions taken to effect the applicant’s discharge were improper or...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02026

    Original file (BC-2006-02026.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    For this offense, he was reduced to the grade of airman first class and forfeited $150.00. Additionally, the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, and he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge. Other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence that would lead us to believe the actions taken to effect his discharge were improper, or that the information in his discharge case...