RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 		DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04148

				COUNSEL:  NONE

				HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to Honorable.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He sincerely requests the Board consider upgrading his 
discharge.  The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) has granted 
him rehabilitation training and would like to take this 
opportunity to get his education and move forward.  An Honorable 
discharge will not change his plans, nor is he seeking 
additional benefits from the military; however, nothing is more 
important to him than upgrading the characterization of his 
service.  It has been more than two years since the day that 
changed his life.  He has worked hard to get his life on track; 
he has not been in any trouble and sees himself as a good 
citizen.  

There are two incidents within this records he would like to 
provide context for the Board’s consideration:

      The first incident is related to a Letter of Reprimand for 
having his tongue pierced.  He wished this was not true; 
however, it is.  He provides no excuse, only that he under the 
belief that as long as he did not wear the piercing while on 
duty, it was authorized.  He admits he should have been more 
diligent in researching the rules.  After receiving the 
piercing, he was wearing a clear plastic retainer when he was 
informed at the last minute of a medical appointment.  He rushed 
to get into uniform for the appointment and simply forgot to 
remove the retainer.  When the doctor noticed the device, he 
removed it immediately.

      The second incident is related to an Article 15.  While out 
with his friends one night off base, they began engaging in 
horseplay.  It was nothing serious and no one was angry.  They 
were just simply wrestling.  Afterward, there were no injuries 
or damage, they all returned inside.  When they reentered the 
facility, Security Forces had arrived and took them back to the 
dormitories.  Nothing more was said concerning the night, until 
his discharge.   At the time of his discharge, he was informed 
that the events of that evening would now become an Article 15.  
He was stunned, the incident was never spoken of until the terms 
of his discharge came into question, nor was he provided an 
opportunity to explain the true nature of what had actually 
taken place.    

While home on leave, suffering from Jetlag, and with a very bad 
headache he went to visit with friends.  During the visit he 
started zoning in and out and found it difficult to pay 
attention to his surroundings.  At some point, a friend handed 
him marijuana and he unfortunately took it.  He would like to 
note that he was a cigarette smoker, so in his altered state of 
mind, he was not aware he used an illegal drug.  Immediately 
after inhaling, he suffered a major seizure and was 
hospitalized.  The next two days are blank.  Recently, he has 
had an opportunity to discuss the evening events with his friend 
and he provided a signed, notarized statement attesting to the 
fact the applicant was unaware of his drug use.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 10 Aug 
10.

On 5 Feb 13, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for 
wearing an unauthorized item, specifically a tongue ring, in 
violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

On 20 Mar 13, the applicant accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial 
Punishment, for the wrongful use of marijuana a violation of 
Article 112a and drunk and disorderly a violation of Article 134 
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  He was reduced in 
grade to airman, ordered to forfeit $849.00 a month, for two 
months (suspended), restricted to the limits of base for 30 days 
and reprimanded.

On 18 Apr 13, the applicant was notified by his commander that 
he was recommending him for discharge for Misconduct:  Drug 
Abuse, in accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation 
of Airmen, Chapter 5, paragraph 5.54.  He consulted legal 
counsel and submitted a statement on his behalf for 
consideration.

On 29 Apr 13, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case file 
and found it legally sufficient.  

On 6 May 13, the discharge authority directed the applicant be 
discharged with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) 
characterization of service without probation and/or 
rehabilitation.  

On 16 May 13, the applicant was furnished a General (Under 
Honorable Conditions) discharge, and was credited with two 
years, nine months, and seven days of active service.   

On 17 Oct 13, the Air Force Discharge Review Board found neither 
the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant 
substantiated an inequity or impropriety that would justify a 
change of discharge.  They concluded the discharge was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge regulations and within the discretion of the 
discharge authority.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  

In accordance with AFI 36-3208, Chapter 5, paragraph 5.54, drug 
abuse is “incompatible with military service and airmen who 
abuse drugs one or more times are subject to discharge for 
misconduct.” 

Based on the documentation on file in the official master 
personnel records, the discharge to include the separation 
program designation (SPD) code, narrative reason for separation, 
and characterization of service were all consistent with the 
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR 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 17 Feb 15 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D).  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 timely filed.

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 in judging the 
merits of the case and agree with the opinion and recommendation 
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and 
adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.


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-2014-04148 in Executive Session on 25 Aug 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-04148 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Sep 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 9 Jan 15.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 15.