RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00694 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was told that instead of attending rehabilitation he could 
have his discharge upgraded if he stayed out of trouble. He 
further states he has a Bachelor of Science Degree in Computer 
Information Technology and has had no problems since leaving the 
Air Force. 

 

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23 July 1984. 

 

The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to 
recommend his discharge from the Air Force under the provisions 
of AFR 39-10 – Drug Abuse. The specific reason is the applicant 
did, on or about 18 February 1986 and on or about 24 February 
1986, wrongfully possess marijuana, a schedule 1 controlled 
substance. 

 

He was advised of his rights in this matter and after consulting 
with counsel the applicant elected to waive his right to submit a 
statement on his own behalf. In a legal review of the case file, 
the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and 
recommended discharge. The discharge authority concurred with 
the recommendation and directed a general (under honorable 
conditions) discharge. The applicant was discharged on 26 March 
1986. He served 1 year, 8 months and 4 days on active duty. 

 

 

 

 

 


On 7 March 2013, a request for information pertaining to his 
post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for review 
and response. 

 

The applicant provided a response stating he has been married for 
eighteen years, became a foster parent, plus took in two of his 
sister’s grandchildren – ages 3 and 18 months. In 2002, he went 
back to school and received an Associate’s Degree in Computer 
Networking and in 2007 he received a Bachelor of Science Degree 
in Computer Networking. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit 
D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. In the interest of 
justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; 
however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient 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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an 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-2012-00694 in Executive Session on 4 April 2013, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 January 2012. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Email Communique, AFBCMR, dated 7 March 2013. 

 Exhibit D. Email Communique, Applicant, dated 19 March 2013, 

 w/atch.