RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04283 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His general (under honorable conditions (UHC)) discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. His Report of Individual Counseling (RIC), dated 3 Aug 06, be removed from his records. 3. His second urinalysis be removed from his records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. He believes his discharge to be unjust because of one isolated event in an otherwise flawless and honorable service. He was treated differently because he was a first term airman who did not have the proper legal advice. He received 30 days extra duty, an Article 15, and was demoted two grades. He feels that he has paid his debt for the mistake he made. 2. His RIC should be removed from his record due to the fact that RICs are only supposed to be a part of the Unfavorable Information File (UIF) for 6 months. 3. The second urinalysis should be removed because it was taken in place of the first urinalysis. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (Drug Abuse). The specific reason for this action was for drug abuse. He received a RIC for failing to report to an official function, an Article 15 for wrongfully using marijuana, and was reduced to the rank of airman. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of his discharge and consulted with legal counsel. He waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf. The applicant requested the AFDRB upgrade his discharge; however, they concluded his discharge was properly administered and was within the discharge authority’s discretion. The applicant received a general (UHC) discharge on 25 Jun 08. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFMOA/SGH recommends denying the applicant’s request to remove either of the urinalyses from his record. Their review of the available documents reflects two distinct valid tests, with two distinct valid results and there appears to be no reason to recommend removal of either urinalysis. The complete SGH evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIM recommends denying the applicant’s request to remove the RIC from his Personnel Information File (PIF) since the PIF became obsolete when the applicant separated from the Air Force. The Air Force Records Information Management System (AFIRMS) shows that PIFs are retained in office file until superseded, no longer needed, separation, or reassignment of individual when they change duty stations. . The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denying the applicant request to upgrade his discharge. Based on the documents in the applicant’s official records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discharge authority’s discretion. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 8 Feb 13 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no 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. In this respect, 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 his service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. With regard to the RIC and second urinalysis, we agree with the assessments and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale that there is no basis for approval of these requests and that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04283 in Executive Session on 16 May 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2012- 04283 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Jan 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFMOA/SGH, dated 31 Oct 12. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 15 Nov 12. Exhibit E. Letter, APFC/DPSOR, dated 22 Jan 13. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Feb 13.