RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01987

					COUNSEL:  YES

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be 
upgraded to honorable.

2.  Her separation program designator (SPD) code (SPD) of JKK 
(drug abuse) be changed to a favorable code that signifies no 
specific reason for separation.

3.  Her reentry code (RE) of 2B (discharged under general or 
other-than-honorable conditions) to a favorable RE code 1, 
making her eligible to reenlist into the military.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She had ineffective legal counsel, was under duress and coerced 
by investigator to unjustly admit to guilt, there was 
insufficient evidence that an illegal substance was abused, she 
was unaware of any Air Force policy pertaining to synthetic 
drugs and did not violate any state law and or federal law at 
the time of the alleged offense.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
11 Mar 08.

On 8 Mar 11, the applicant’s commander notified her of his 
intent to recommend her discharge for misconduct – drug abuse.  
The reason for the action was that during the period from 1 May 
10 – 15 Dec 10, the applicant violated a lawful general order, 
dated 15 Apr 10, by wrongfully using and possessing some amount 
of spice, for which she received non-judicial punishment (NJP) 
under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  
The letter of notification indicated the applicant had a right 
to consult with legal counsel and a right to submit statements 
on her own behalf.  

On 8 Mar 11, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action 
and of her right to consult with legal counsel.  

On 25 Mar 11, the applicant was furnished a general (under 
honorable condition) discharge, and was credited with 3 years 
and 15 days of active service.   

On 29 Nov 11, the applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge 
Review Board (AFDRB) to have her discharge upgraded to 
honorable.  The applicant’s case was heard in Washington D.C. on 
14 Jun 12.  The AFDRB denied the request, concluding the 
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the 
discretion of the discharge authority, and that she was provided 
full administrative due process.

On 31 May 14, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 
30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office (Exhibit D).

On 17 Feb 15, the applicant requested that her case be 
administratively closed and, on 2 Mar 15, she was notified that 
her case was administratively closed, without prejudice, until 
such time that she was ready to proceed.  On 10 Mar 15, the 
applicant requested that her case be re-opened and that 
processing of her case to the Board resume.  Exhibits G, H, and 
I.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  The applicant’s commander notified 
her she was being separated under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, 
Administrative Separation of Airmen (misconduct-drug abuse) with 
a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  Drug abuse 
for the purpose of this regulation is the illegal, wrongful, or 
improper use, possession, sale, transfer, or introduction onto a 
military installation of any drug.  This includes improper use 
of prescription medication.  The term drug includes any 
controlled substance in schedules I, II, III, IV, and V of Title 
21 U.S.C, Section 812.  It also includes anabolic/androgenic 
steroids, and any intoxicating substance, other than alcohol, 
that is inhaled, injected, consumed or introduced into the body 
in any manner for purposes of altering mood or function.  Based 
on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, 
the discharge to include the SPD code, narrative reason for 
separation and characterization of service were consistent with 
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In response, counsel contends that the OPR’s advisory does not 
address that the general order was not publicized or distributed  
at the wing level nor did the applicant’s commander make 
reference at any Commander’s Call to there being a policy 
regarding the use of synthetic drugs.  

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit F.


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

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 agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
(OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion 
the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  
While we note Counsel’s rebuttal argument that the general order 
was not publicized or distributed at the wing level nor did the 
applicant’s commander make reference at any Commander’s Call to 
there being a policy regarding the use of synthetic drugs, other 
than argument and conjecture, neither the applicant, nor her 
counsel, has presented evidence that she should not have been 
reasonably aware that her actions were in violation of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the requested relief.


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 members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-01987 in Executive Session on 16 Apr 15, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-01987 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Mar 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 19 May 14.
     Exhibit D.  Clemency Info Bulletin, dated 31 May 14.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Aug 14.
     Exhibit F.  Counsel Rebuttal, dated 22 Aug 14.
     Exhibit G.  Email, Applicant, dated 17 Feb 15.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Mar 15.
     Exhibit I.  Email, Applicant, dated 10 Mar 15.