RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03846

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Character of Service be changed to “honorable” rather than “general (under honorable conditions),” with the corresponding narrative reason for separation and separation code.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was discharged for a positive urinalysis; however, she had a prescription for the drug and feels her discharge was unjust.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 6 Oct 09, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force.

Based on the available evidence, the applicant was charged with violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  Specifically, she was accused of wrongfully using hydrocodone, a Schedule II controlled substance.  She consulted counsel, waived her right to demand trial by court-martial, and accepted Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP).  She submitted written matters in her own behalf and requested a personal appearance before the commander and that it not be public.

The commander determined she committed the offense alleged, and imposed punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of airman basic and a reprimand.  The portion of punishment which extended to reduction in grade below airman was suspended through 23 Aug 14, at which time it was to be remitted without further action unless sooner vacated.  The applicant appealed the commander’s decision and provided matters in writing.  Her appeal was denied by her commander; however, the appellate authority mitigated the reduction to the grade of airman, with reduction below airman first class suspended through 23 Aug 14, at which time it was to be remitted without further action unless sooner vacated.  The commander decided the action would be filed in her Unfavorable Information File (UIF).  The Article 15 action was reviewed by the servicing and General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GMACA) Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) offices and determined to be legally sufficient.  

On 2 Apr 14, the applicant was notified of her commander’s intent to recommend her discharge from the Air Force for Drug Abuse, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  Before recommending discharge, the commander noted he considered the applicant’s entire military record and her response to the discharge notification and did not believe that she unknowingly took hydrocodone or that her conduct warrants an honorable discharge.  In addition, the commander noted the applicant’s wrongful use of hydrocodone, after previously self-identifying for prescription drug abuse and receiving treatment, clearly outweighs the positive aspects of her military career.  Her continued service would be inconsistent with the preservation of good order and discipline in both the unit and Air Force.  The commander did not recommend probation or rehabilitation.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge.  After consulting with legal counsel, the applicant elected to submit a statement in her own behalf.    

On 14 Apr 14, the SJA found the case legally sufficient to support discharge and recommended the applicant receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without the offer of probation or rehabilitation.  

On 16 Apr 14, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge.  On 22 Apr 14, the applicant was discharged for Misconduct – Drug Abuse with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) in the grade of airman first class.  She served 4 years, 6 months and 17 days of total active service.  

On 27 May 16, the applicant was notified that AFI 36-2603, AFBCMR, paragraph 4.7.3 requires that if an applicant has not exhausted all available effective administrative remedies, the application will be denied by the Board on that basis.     

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has not 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 error or injustice.  In this respect, we note this Board is the highest administrative level of appeal within the Air Force.  As such, an applicant must first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief provided by existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction.  As pointed out by the AFBCMR, on 27 May 16, there is an available avenue of administrative relief (AFDRB) the applicant has not first exhausted.    In view of this, we find this application is not ripe for adjudication at this level as there exists a subordinate level of appeal that has not first been depleted.  Therefore, in view of the above, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that all available avenues of administrative relief have not been exhausted; and the application will only be reconsidered upon submission of documentary evidence indicating that said avenues of administrative relief have been exhausted.  

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03846 in Executive Session on 10 Nov 16, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Sep 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 May 16.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.