RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-05216

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged from the Air Force for being homosexual.  He believes his discharge should be upgraded since the Air Force changed its policy on homosexuals serving in the Air Force.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 13 August 1981.

On 1 June 1984, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force for abusing controlled substances – including marijuana, cocaine, and LSD on different occasions from July 1983 to January 1984.  The applicant was advised of his rights in this matter and after consulting with counsel the applicant waived his right to submit a statement on his own behalf.

On 19 June 1984, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge.

On 19 June 1984, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendation.  The commander considered probation and rehabilitation, but did not grant it.

On 21 June 1984, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct – Drug Abuse) and was credited with 2 years, 10 months, and 9 days of active service.

On 10 February 1986, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request that his general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.  The board concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.  There exist no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge (Exhibit B).

On 9 March 2016, a request for information pertaining to his post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (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 application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of 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 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, based on the evidence before us, we find no basis to grant clemency at this time.  We further note, the applicant claims he was discharged from the Air Force for being homosexual; however, there is no evidence of a homosexual relationship in the applicant’s record or discharge actions.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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-2015-05216 in Executive Session on 14 March 2017 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 December 2006.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 March 2016.

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.