RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00394
					COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would very much like the Board to review his file and upgrade 
his discharge.  At the time of his discharge he was told he 
could request to have his discharge upgraded but he never did. 

His current employer asked for a copy of his discharge.  He 
would like to see if he could get it upgraded before providing 
it.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
entered active duty on 16 Mar 83.  
On 6 Apr 84, the applicant was notified that his commander was 
recommending him for administrative discharge for drug abuse 
with an UOTHC discharge.  The bases for the action were the 
applicant was apprehended for possession and use of marijuana, 
for which he received non-judicial punishment under Article 15 
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); he was non-
recommended for promotion to the grade of airman; he failed to 
obey the speed limit on the Air Force Base; he was arrested for 
driving under the influence (DUI) for which he received a Letter 
of Reprimand (LOR); he failed to comply with the Air Force Base 
regulations by allowing an individual to operate his vehicle 
while under revocation, for which he received an LOR; he was 
identified as having used marijuana by a positive urinalysis, 
for which he received an Article 15, and he failed to obey a 
direct order of the Deputy Commander by operating his vehicle 
within the confines of his Air Force Base while under 
revocation, for which he received an Article 15.
On 9 Apr 84, after consulting counsel, the applicant submitted a 
letter conditionally waiving all rights to a hearing before a 
board of officers, if the discharge authority approved a general 
discharge.  This waiver was rejected.  On 3 May 84, after a 
subsequent meeting with counsel, the applicant submitted a 
letter stating he did not waive his right to a hearing before an 
Administrative Discharge Board (ADB).  
On 21 Jun 84, the applicant was represented by counsel and 
appeared before the ADB.  After considering all the evidence in 
the case, the ADB found the applicant had committed a serious 
offense, i.e., drug abuse and recommended his discharge with a 
UOTHC, and that rehabilitation opportunities not be offered.  
After a legal review found the case to be legally sufficient, 
the discharge authority approved the recommended discharge and 
directed the applicant be issued an UOTHC discharge for drug 
abuse, without probation and rehabilitation under the provisions 
of Air Force Regulation 39-10, Administrative Separation of 
Airmen, Chapter 5, Section H, paragraph 5-49c, Misconduct – Drug 
Abuse – Board Hearing.  
On 3 Oct 84, the applicant was discharged with an UOTHC, with a 
narrative reason for separation of Misconduct – Drug Abuse – 
Board Hearing.  He served 1 year, 6 months, and 18 days on 
active duty.

On 28 Apr 14, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office. 


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 an error or injustice.  We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include his 
rebuttal response, 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 the service was contrary to the provisions 
of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate 
to the offenses committed.  In the interest of justice, we 
considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, 
we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to recommend 
granting relief on that basis.  Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought.


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-2014-00394 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 14 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jan 14.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
	Exhibit C.  Information Bulletin, not dated. 



FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
2
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
4