RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-02845 INDEX CODE:	110.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:	NONE HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He feels the type of discharge he was given was very harsh considering he was never charged with a crime. It was determined by a urinalysis test that he did not use drugs. His record was clean and he had no prior incidents of that nature. He has paid dearly for his lapse in judgment. Since his discharge, he has led an exemplary life, became a born-again Christian, and served faithfully in both State and Federal governments, winning several employee-of-the-year awards. He has no criminal record.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal statement and a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 13 March 1978, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 21. He was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) effective and with a date of rank of 1 January 1984.

On 22 February 1988, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for disobeying a traffic stop sign. On 9 April 1988, he was arrested by civilian authorities for possession of marijuana. On 20 April 1988, he received an LOC for writing a bad check to the Base Commissary. On 21 July 1988, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for writing a bad check to the Base Exchange. On 18 August 1988, the applicant received Article 15 punishment for his 9 April 1988 drug incident. His punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of sergeant (E-4) with a new date of rank of 18 August 1988 and forfeiture of $240 pay per month for one month.

On 2 December 1988, his commander initiated action against the applicant for a general discharge under AFR 39-10, paragraph 5- 49(c) for drug abuse. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander’s intent, consulted counsel, and offered a conditional waiver of his rights associated with a administrative discharge board hearing contingent upon his receipt of no less than a general discharge. On 13 January 1989, following two legal reviews that found the case to be legally sufficient, the discharge authority accepted the applicant’s conditional waiver and directed he be given a general discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-49c, for misconduct, commission of a serous offense, drug abuse, without probation or rehabilitation.

On 25 January 1989, the applicant was released from active duty with a general discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-10 with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct – Drug Abuse.” He served 10 years, 10 months, and 13 days on active duty.

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

On 12 September 2008, the applicant was given the opportunity to submit comments about his post service activities (Exhibit C). The applicant responded with a personal statement, four character references, and two laudatory certificates (Exhibit D).

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 that an error or injustice occurred in the discharge process. 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. 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
1.	
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 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 22 October 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-02845:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 21 Jul 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Sep 08, w/atch. Exhibit D.	Applicant’s Letter, not dated, w/atchs.