RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-02803

	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2.  His grade of airman first class (A1C, E-3) be reinstated.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was mistreated by an officer in his chain of command and his discharge should be upgraded to reflect the misunderstood circumstances of his drug possession.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force airman.  

On 28 Aug 79, the applicant’s commander offered him nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully possessing marijuana.

On 31 Aug 79, after consulting with counsel, the applicant accepted the Article 15 punishment which consisted of reduction to the grade of Airman (Amn), with a new date of rank of 31 Aug 79 and forfeiture of $50.00 pay.

On 5 Sep 79, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, Section A, paragraph 2-4c for Apathy and Defective Attitude.  The reason for the action was that he identified as a drug abuser upon a Security Police Investigation in which he voluntarily turned himself in for using marijuana.  He was offered rehabilitation but refused it. 

On 24 Sep 79, the discharge action was found legally sufficient, and the discharge authority approved the recommendation on 27 Sep 79.

On 28 Sep 79, the applicant received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. 

On 3 Nov 80, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his under honorable conditions (general) discharge to honorable, indicating the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, provided full administrative due process, and was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  The board concluded that the applicant’s discharge should not be changed.

On 21 Sep 16, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits D, E, and F.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denying the application indicating there is no evidence or allegation of an error or injustice that undermines the NJP he received.  The applicant was found guilty of possession of marijuana after he had received two prior Letters of Counseling for other wrongdoings.  He then rejected rehabilitation programs and suggested he would continue using marijuana.  There is no basis in law to suggest that NJP process is an injustice warranting correction The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/JA recommends denying the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization indicating the request is untimely.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s records to indicate his discharge characterization was (or is) erroneous or unjust.  Additionally, the applicant has not provided any evidence to support an upgrade of his discharge service characterization based upon clemency.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DP2SPP makes no recommendation indicating they have no equity in the decision regarding the NJP punishment and defer to the recommendation of the office of primary responsibility.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 18 Jan 18 for comment (Exhibit G), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an injustice.  It appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the commander’s discretion.  Nor was the discharge unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  Regarding his request to show that he was reinstated to the grade of Airman First Class, the applicant has not provided any evidence to show that his reduction to the grade of Amn was in error or that his commander lacked the authority to do so.  Therefore, we find no basis to act on this portion his request.  In the interest of justice, the Board considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, given the evidence presented, the Board finds no basis to do so.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2016-02803 in Executive Session on 30 May 18:

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 7 Jul 16.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 9 Jan 17.
Exhibit D.	Advisory opinion, AFPC/JA, dated 18 Aug 17.
Exhibit E.	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SPP, dated 16 Jan 18.
Exhibit F:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 18 Jan 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9 for Docket Number BC-2016-02803.