RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03322 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was never informed of his rights and the period of time he’s 
had to suffer the effects of the discharge characterization is 
unjust. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force, on 
11 October 1984, in the grade of airman basic (E-1/AB) for a 
period of four years. He was progressively promoted to the 
grade of airman (E-2/Amn), with a Date of Rank (DOR) of 
11 April 1985. 

 

 a. He received an Article 15 for resisting apprehension, 
on or about 10 August 1985. His punishment consisted of 
correctional custody for 30 days and a suspended reduction to 
the grade of AB. 

 

 b. He received an Article 15 for wrongful use of 
marijuana, on or about 10 August 1985. His punishment consisted 
of a reduction to the grade of airman basic (AB). 

 

The applicant was notified by his commander that he was 
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-49c, commission of a 
serious offense – drug abuse. The specific reasons for this 
action were based on the incidents listed above. 

 


Due to the applicant’s grade, time in service, and the character 
of service being recommended, he was not entitled to present his 
case before a board of officers. However, after consulting with 
counsel, the applicant submitted written statements in his own 
behalf. After a legal review of the case file, the staff judge 
advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended the 
applicant receive a general discharge without probation and 
rehabilitation (P&R). The discharge authority approved the 
general discharge, without P&R. 

 

The applicant was discharged, on 10 December 1985, under the 
provisions of AFR 39-10, with a reason for separation of 
misconduct – drug abuse, with service characterized as general 
(under honorable conditions). He was credited with one year and 
two months of active duty service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 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 during 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 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. We also find 
insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the 
discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. We have 
considered the available evidence of record; however, based on 
the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is 
warranted. The applicant has not provided sufficient 
information of post-service activities and accomplishments for 
us to conclude that he has overcome the behavioral traits which 
caused the discharge. Should the applicant provide statements 
from community leaders and acquaintances attesting to his good 
character and reputation and other evidence of successful post-
service rehabilitation, this Board may be inclined to reconsider 
this case based on the new evidence. We cannot, however, 
recommend approval based on the current evidence of record. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. 

 


________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2010-03322 in Executive Session on 14 December 2010, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Mar 10. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.