RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00839 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His UOTHC discharge was unfair because he has been suffering from the consequences of this discharge for over 23 years. He was found guilty of smoking marijuana. He was offered a general discharge, but chose court-martial, to prolong his separation and concern for his family. He wants to serve his country again by getting a federal job. Since his discharge, he has not been found in the possession of or under the influence of any form of drugs or illegal substance. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 13 May 87, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the Regular Air Force. On 7 Feb 91, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for drug abuse. The reason for the discharge action was on or about 24 Apr 90 and 1 May 90, he wrongfully used marijuana, as evidenced by a positive urinalysis. His commander advised him of his rights in this matter and he exercised his right to present his case before an administrative review board. On 14 May 91, an administrative review board convened and determined the applicant wrongfully used marijuana and recommended discharge with an UOTHC discharge. On 30 Sep 91, the legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support discharge. The discharge authority concurred with the findings and recommendation and directed the applicant be furnished an UOTHC discharge. On 22 Oct 91, the applicant was furnished an UOTHC discharge, and was credited with 13 years, 1 month and 4 days of active service. On 9 Mar 15, a request for post-service information and a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background check was forwarded to the applicant (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 applicant was not timely filed. While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years ago, in our view, the reasonable date of discovery of the alleged error or injustice was more than three years ago and the application is therefore untimely. 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 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 and narrative reason for separation was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. In the interest of justice, we also considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to his activities since leaving the service, we are not inclined to recommend granting the requested relief on that basis. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. 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-2015-00839 in Executive Session on 4 Nov 15 and 1 Dec 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00839 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 15, w/atchs4 Dec 14. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Mar 15, w/atch. 3