RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02872 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for discharge of “drug abuse” be changed. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He worked on the SR-71 and U-2 reconnaissance aircrafts and his records are flawless. He was wrongfully convicted and the Supreme Court overruled his conviction and gave him an honorable discharge. He is unable to obtain gainful employment due to the statement on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. He had his name changed in 1992 in order to make a new life; however, this failed due to his time in the Air Force. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214 and name change documents. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 Feb 84, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 25 Apr 88, he was convicted by Special Court Martial of wrongfully using cocaine between or about 1 Feb 86 and 31 Mar 86 and 1 Aug 87 to 31 Aug 87. He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for four months, and a reduction to the grade of airman basic. On 28 Apr 89, the Court of Military Review set aside the findings and sentence because of an erroneous ruling by the military judge on admissibility of evidence. The convening authority did not order a rehearing. All rights, privileges and property of which the accused had been deprived by virtue of the findings of guilty were restored. On 9 May 89, the applicant was notified of pending discharge action. Specifically, the commander cited drug abuse as the basis for discharge. The applicant consulted counsel and submitted a conditional waiver contingent upon his receipt of no less than an honorable discharge. On 10 May 89, the staff judge advocate ruled that the applicant’s confession and witness statements would be admissible in a discharge board. The staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient, concurred with the commander’s recommendation of an honorable discharge, and recommended the discharge authority accept the applicant’s conditional waiver. On 11 May 89, the discharge authority accepted the applicant’s conditional waiver and directed discharge. On 13 May 89, the applicant was separated with an honorable discharge with a narrative reason for separation of misconduct – drug abuse. He is credited with five years, three months, and ten days of active service. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice to warrant the requested change to his narrative reason for separation. The discharge, to include his characterization of service, was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge manual and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The complete HQ AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 Dec 10 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a response. _________________________________________________________________ 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. Although the applicant’s court-martial was overturned during a judicial review, we note he was subject to an administrative discharge based on his admitted misconduct. 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 the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge. Further, he has not provided sufficient information of post-service activities and accomplishments for us to conclude that his discharge should be upgraded based on clemency. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In view of the above, we find no basis to warrant favorable action on this application. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 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-2010-02872 in Executive Session on 30 March 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered for Docket Number BC-2010-02872: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jul 2007, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, dated 13 Dec 10. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Dec 10.