RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01414 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He got into trouble with civilian authorities for drug possession. He made a terrible mistake and paid his price to society for his error. He provided the Air Force with honorable service up to the point he made the mistake. He has not possessed or used drugs since the incident that led to his discharge. He feels an upgrade to his characterization of discharge is warranted. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement; a letter of support from his sister; and a copy of his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served on active duty from 26 April 1971 to 28 June 1973. He served as an Administrative Specialist and was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3). On 5 October 1972, the applicant was arrested by civilian authorities for possessing marijuana for sale and for unlawfully maintaining a place to sell narcotics. He was subsequently convicted and was sentenced to three years of probation and 90 days in the County Jail. He served 71 days in jail after being released early for good behavior. On 3 November 1971, the applicant volunteered for rehabilitation under the United States Air Force Drug Abuse Program. On 15 May 1973, he was disenrolled for failure to complete Phase V of the rehabilitation program. He subsequently signed a statement refusing probation and rehabilitation if offered to him. On 23 May 1973, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend the applicant for discharge for misconduct. The applicant waived his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board, but submitted a statement in his own behalf requesting he not be issued an undesirable discharge. On 22 June 1973, the Acting Staff Judge Advocate found the case to be legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge without probation or rehabilitation. On 25 June 1973, the discharge authority approved the recommended discharge under the provisions of Air Force Manual 39-12, Chapter 2, Section C, paragraph 2-23. The applicant was discharged from active duty effective 28 June 1973 with a UOTHC discharge. He served two years, two months, and three days on active duty. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated that on the basis of the data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest record pertaining to the applicant. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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. Furthermore, we do not find clemency is appropriate in this case since the applicant has not provided any evidence concerning his post- service activities. Based on the foregoing, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-01414 in Executive Session on 10 November 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-01414 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.