RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00716 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was forced into accepting a lesser discharge for the ease of 
the military. 

 

He was not informed of the ramifications, limitations, and harm 
his discharge would have on his future career and benefits. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of 
licenses as a registered nurse and physical therapy assistant. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 18 Apr 89, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force and 
was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman. 

 

He received four (4) Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) all with 
overall ratings of “5.” 

 

On 18 May 94, the applicant was notified by his commander that he 
was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for drug abuse. 
The reason for the proposed action was between on or about 1 and 
8 Mar 94, the applicant used marijuana, for which he received an 
Article 15. Punishment imposed was a reduction to the grade of 
airman first class. 

 

Other punishment imposed was on 17 May 94, he received an Article 
15, for making a false official statement “that the first time he 
ever used marijuana was when he was 14 years of age, and that 
since then he had never tried it again until his recent incident” 
which statement was false in that he had used marijuana on 
several occasions prior to entering the Air Force. Punishment 
imposed was a reduction in grade to airman. 

 


On 23 May 94, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
notification of discharge and, after consulting with counsel, 
submitted statements in his own behalf. 

 

On 31 May 94, the staff judge advocate reviewed the case and 
found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended 
that he receive a general discharge without probation and 
rehabilitation. 

 

The applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, by reason of misconduct, and 
received a general discharge. He served on active duty for a 
period of 5 years, 1 month and 22 days. 

 

Pursuant to the request of the Board on 1 Apr 11, the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated on 
4 Apr 11, that, on the basis of the data furnished, they were 
unable to locate an arrest record. 

 

On 2 Jun 11, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an 
opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities 
since leaving the service (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 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 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. We considered 
upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not 
find sufficient evidence to compel us to recommend granting the 
relief sought on that basis. 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 that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that 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 Docket Number 
BC-2010-00716 in Executive Session on 21 Jul 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 2 Jun 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair