RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01440 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge for misconduct—drug abuse be upgraded to Honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The “write-up” for misconduct in his records does not have anything to do with his discharge. The real reason was discrimination. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Air Force on 22 Apr 77. On 9 May 80, the applicant’s commander issued him nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The reason for the Article 15 was the applicant did, on diverse occasions between 1 Apr 79 and 1 Apr 80, wrongfully use marijuana. On 29 Nov 83, a urine sample from the applicant tested positive for marijuana. On 19 Dec 83, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for drug abuse. The reasons for this action were: a.  On 11 Jul 83, the applicant was counseled by his supervisor for being late for 0730 roll call. b.  On 3 Nov 83, the applicant was counseled for missing a dental appointment. c.  On numerous occasions, the applicant arrived late to work. d.  On 29 Nov 83, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing to mop the hangar floor as he was directed by his supervisor. e.  On 15 Dec 83, the applicant’s commander was notified the applicant’s urine tested positive for marijuana. On 19 Dec 83, the applicant’s commander recommended him for discharge. The applicant subsequently acknowledged receipt of the action, waived his right to an administrative discharge board hearing, and chose not to submit statements in his own behalf. The case was found to be legally sufficient. On 17 Mar 84, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged and furnished a General discharge certificate. On 22 Apr 77, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, with a Narrative Reason for Separation of ”Misconduct—Drug Abuse,” and was credited with 6 years, 10 months, and 29 days of active service. On 18 Nov 13, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. In response, the applicant provided an expanded personal statement documenting his post-service employment challenges, to include the extensive history of a knee injury and his efforts to receive redress for his employment issues. In addition, he provided a character reference (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 do not find the documentation presented sufficient to conclude the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice. While the applicant contends his discharge was based upon discrimination and unrelated to his drug abuse, we find no evidence to substantiate this contention. Based on the evidence before us, it appears the applicant’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in effect at the time and within the commander’s discretionary authority. No evidence has been presented to indicate otherwise. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to conclude his post-service accomplishments were sufficient to overcome the misconduct that formed the basis of his discharge. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists for us to recommend granting the relief sought in 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 the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2013-01440 in Executive Session on 14 Jan 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Mar 13. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 18 Nov 13. Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Dec 13. Panel Chair