RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03301
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
		COUNSEL:  None
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her discharge was based on a one-time incident for which she accepts full responsibility.  Since her discharge, she has remained committed to the military community; she has steered young people who had no direction in life to join the military.  She has volunteered countless hours in assisting Veterans in filling out forms to obtain housing, medical and other benefits available to them.  She sincerely hopes the Board forgives her youthful indiscretion and allows her the opportunity to display an honorable discharge.  

Applicant provides no supporting documentation.  The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 3 Oct 78, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of 4 years.  She was progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant (E-4), having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Sep 82.  The following is a resume of her Airman Performance Report ratings, commencing with the report closing 29 Dec 89.

	PERIOD ENDING	OVERALL EVALUATION

	  13 Jun 81			8
	  13 Jun 82			9
	  13 Jun 83			8
	  11 Oct 83			8
	  10 Apr 84			8

On 30 Mar 84, the applicant received an Article 15 as a result of a positive urine sample during a random urinalysis testing.  For this incident, punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), was imposed.  She was reduced to the grade of airman first class (E-3), $165.00 forfeiture of her pay per month for two months and 30 days of extra duty.  

On 10 Apr 84, the applicant’s commander initiated discharge proceedings against her under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-49c, for drug abuse.  The commander stated the reason for his action was the use of marijuana as evidenced by a positive urine specimen provided by the applicant.  The applicant was notified of her commander’s recommendation and that a general discharge was being recommended.  She was advised of her rights and consulted counsel and elected to submit statements in her own behalf.  In a legal review of the discharge case file, the staff judge advocate found it legally sufficient and recommended she be discharged from the Air Force with a general discharge and concurred with the commander that the applicant not be considered for probation and rehabilitation.  On 1 May 84, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with a general discharge.  She served 5 years, 7 months, and 5 days on active duty.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated that on the basis of the data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest record pertaining to the applicant.

On 3 Jan 08, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days.  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 offense committed.  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.  

_________________________________________________________________

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 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 Docket Number BC-2007-03301 in Executive Session on 13 Feb 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007-03301 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Sep 07.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Negative FBI reply dated 29 Nov 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Jan 08.