RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-00809 

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded to honorable, and his Narrative Reason for Separation of Drug Abuse be removed from his discharge form.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He attended a party where, unbeknownst to him, the participants smoked marijuana.  Approximately 2 weeks later there was a random urinalysis, and those who failed were asked who attended the party.  Even though he passed the urinalysis his name was given to authorities.  He denied seeing or using drugs, but was discharged anyway.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 26 May 82.

On 23 Jan 86, the applicant’s commander notified him he was going to recommend him for discharge due to Drug Abuse.  He was advised of his right to legal military council and to submit statements on his own behalf.  The reason for this action was:  On or about     18 Oct 85, applicant wrongfully used marijuana, and received an Article 15, with punishment including reduction to the grade of Airman First Class, and forfeiture of $400 pay per month for         1 month.

The separation action was determined to be legally sufficient, and on 12 Feb 86, the discharge authority directed he be discharged with a General discharge without probation or rehabilitation.  

On 14 Feb 86, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, with a Narrative Reason for Separation as Misconduct-Drug Abuse, and was credited with 3 years, 8 months, and 19 days of active service. 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.

The commander and discharge authority considered the serious nature of the misconduct and determined that an under honorable conditions (General) service characterization was warranted.  Based on the documentation on file in the Master Personnel Records, the discharge, to include the separation code, narrative reason for separation and characterization of service were consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 27 Feb 17 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 timely filed.

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 agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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-2016-00809 in Executive Session on 11 Jul 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-00809 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Feb 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Excerpts from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 8 Jun 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Feb 17.
	
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.