RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04582

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He wants a discharge upgrade to have access to benefits, such as health care.  A mistake he made while in the Air Force as a young man should not haunt him for the rest of his life.  He has taken a different path and has been a productive citizen since his discharge.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 3 Jul 78.

On 19 Feb 86, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to recommend discharge for misconduct–drug abuse as evidenced by the following:

a. Wrongful use of marijuana between on or about 7 Jan 81 and on or about 23 Oct 85 as evidenced by statement dated 14 Jan 86, an AF Form 1890, Urinalysis Custody and Report Record dated 16 Jan 86, and an Article 15 dated 24 Jan 86.

b. Wrongful use of marijuana before 16 Sep 83 could be considered as a basis for discharge, but not be considered to determine the characterization of discharge. 

On 13 May 86, the action was found legally sufficient recommending a UOTHC discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 16 May 86, the discharge authority approved the action as proposed and directed the applicant be furnished an UOTHC discharge.

On 21 May 86, the applicant was furnished an UOTHC for misconduct-drug abuse, and was credited with 7 years, 10 months, and 19 days of active service.

On 1 Jan 87, the applicant submitted a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States.  He requested his UOTHC be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions discharge contending he was improperly discharged based on one mistake in his eight years of service.

On 5 Nov 87, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request and concluded the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

On 9 Mar 16, a request for post-service documentation was forwarded with Clemency guidelines to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.  (Exhibit C)

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.  After a careful review of the applicant's contentions and the available evidence of record, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that he is the victim of an error or injustice.  Based on the evidence before us, it appears the applicant’s UOTHC discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in effect at the time and within the commander’s discretionary authority.  In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, the applicant did not submit supporting documentation concerning his post-service activities to determine if his 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 requested relief.  However, because the applicant has prior worthy service, he is eligible to apply to the Department of Veteran Affairs for healthcare benefits.  

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-2015-04582 in Executive Session on 24 Jan 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Oct 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Mar 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.