RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02055 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His	under	honorable	conditions	discharge	to	be	upgraded	to honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Due to his young age, he accepted bad advice to accept an early discharge and wasn’t fully educated on his options at the time of discharge.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 5 Oct 79, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.
On 11 Mar 81, the applicant’s commander was notified the applicants name is listed on a urinalysis report of individual’s testing positive THC levels that show marijuana use.

On 16 Mar 81, the applicant was notified of the intent to impose nonjudicial punishment (NJP), for wrongfully possession and use of marijuana.

On 23 Mar 81, the applicant was reduced in grade to the rank of airman basic (E-1) and ordered to forfeit $250.00.

On 26 Mar 81, the applicant submitted an appeal concerning the NJP to be imposed. He requested he be offered the opportunity to attend drug rehabilitation.  Also contained in the appeal is a statement from the applicants’ roommate that the applicant had no knowledge of his [the roommate’s] drug paraphernalia.

On 31 Mar 81, the applicant accepted NJP in the form of an Article 15 for drug use.

On 6 Apr 81, the applicant was notified of action and signed receipt of action to discharge the applicant for the reason of drug abuse.

On 9 Apr 81, the applicant acknowledged right to seek legal counsel concerning his discharge and his rights under the UCMJ and spoke with counsel.

On 10 Apr 81, the applicant was interviewed by an evaluation officer, and in the findings the applicant stated that he used marijuana and that if continued in military service would continue to use the drug but keep it off base. The evaluation officer recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge.

13 Apr 81, the discharge was found legally sufficient.
On 14 Apr 81, the applicant was furnished an under honorable conditions discharge, and was credited with one year, six months, and ten days of active service.

On 22 May 15, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of this date no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air  Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 NOV 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 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 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.
1.	

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, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s post-service activities, there is no way for us to determine if the applicant’s accomplishments since leaving the service are sufficiently meritorious to overcome the misconduct for which he was  discharged 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	in	Executive Session on 9 Feb 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 12 May 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 May 15.