RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-01056

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL:  NONE

							HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His drug abuse charge is unjust.  He never went to court, nor was he convicted of a crime.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 8 July 2014.

In a memorandum dated 4 November 2015, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for drug abuse as evidenced by his receipt of nonjudicial punishment pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for wrongfully distributing Vicodin, a Schedule II controlled substance.

On 9 November 2015, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and indicated he consulted with counsel and waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 10 November 2015, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge legally sufficient.

On 11 November 2015, the discharge authority directed the applicant be separated from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for “drug abuse.” Probation and Rehabilitation was not authorized.

On 17 November 2015, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, and was credited with 1 year, 4 months, and 10 days of active service.  His narrative reason for discharge is “Drug Abuse.”

In a letter dated 20 June 2016, AFBCMR staff informed the applicant that AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, paragraph 4.7.3, requires that if an applicant has not exhausted all available effective administrative remedies by first appealing to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB), the application would be denied by the Board on that basis and invited the applicant to administratively close his case until such time that he is able to avail himself of the administrative avenues (Exhibit C).  

Via DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States, dated 5 October 2016, the applicant exhausted his administrative remedies when he submitted a request to the AFDRB for an upgrade to his discharge.

AFHQ Form 0-2077, Air Force Discharge Review Board Hearing Record, digitally signed on 21 June 2017, indicates on 25 April 2017, the AFDRB considered and denied the applicant’s appeal for an upgrade to his discharge.  The AFDBR determined the applicant was afforded full administrative due process and his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

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 find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge process.  Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority.  We further note the applicant appealed to the AFDRB for an upgrade to his discharge; however, they also determined the applicant’s discharge was within the discretion of the discharge 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. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this portion of his application.

4.  Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice to warrant changing the applicant’s narrative reason for separation.  We note that the discharge actions taken against the applicant were in accordance with the applicable instructions.  However, given the applicant's age at the time, coupled with the fact that he took full accountability for his actions, it is our opinion that partial relief is warranted.  While we do not condone the applicant's behavior which led to his discharge, we recognize the adverse impact of the applicant's narrative reason for discharge.  As such, we believe it would be an injustice for the applicant to continue to suffer its effects.  Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 17 November 2015, he was discharged with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct (Minor Infractions)” and a separation code of “JKN.”

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-01056 in Executive Session on 15 August 2017 and 7 March 2018, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

All members voted to correct the record as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 March 2016.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Memoranda, AFBCMR, dated 20 June 2016 and 9 June 
  2017.

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.