RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01203 INDEX CODE:	110.02
COUNSEL:	NONE HEARING DESIRED:	YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She did not have a hearing nor did she receive counseling for the alleged charges. She states she would like a copy of the urine test and any court records.

She states she recently learned she could appeal her discharge.
In support of her request, the applicant provided a copy of the statements used for her discharge appeal.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 21 Jul 82 and served for a period of 4 years, 5 months, and 4 days.

On 20 Aug 84, the applicant received a referral airman performance report.

On 16 Apr 85, the applicant was denied the Air Force Good Conduct Medal.

On 11 Jun 86, the applicant’s supervisor denied her award of noncommissioned officer (NCO) status based on behavior and attitude problems. Records indicate the applicant later obtained NCO status on 1 Sep 86.

On 1 Oct 86, the applicant was apprehended at the German/Holland border by German police for alleged possession/use of two (2) grams of hashish and three (3) grams of marijuana. On 21 Nov 86, she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for this incident.

Comments on the LOR states a field test and subsequent laboratory examination were both positive.

Examiner’s Note: A commander-directed urinalysis of 12 Nov 86 reflected negative results.

On 3 Oct 86, the applicant was denied the Air Force Good Conduct Medal.

On 21 Nov 86, the applicant was notified of pending discharge action. Specifically, her commander cited drug abuse as the reason. The applicant provided statements in her own behalf stating she was innocent and her rights were violated.

On 3 Dec 86 the discharge was found to be legally sufficient and the discharge authority directed a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. She was discharged on 24 Dec 86.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was unable to identify an arrest record based on the information furnished (Exhibit C).

On 27 May 08, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days (Exhibit D). The applicant’s complete response 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. The Board finds no impropriety in the characterization of applicant's discharge. It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge. The applicant has not shown the characterization of the discharge was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, nor has it been shown the nature of the discharge was unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offenses committed. Considered alone, we conclude the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.

4.	The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel
1.	
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 Docket Number BC- 2008-01203 in Executive Session on 7 August 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 24 Mar 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Negative FBI Report.
Exhibit D.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 May 08, w/atch. Exhibit E.	Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 5 Jun 08, w/atchs.