RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03740 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He received two Article 15s for simple possession of marijuana. 
In the interest of justice, the character of service received is 
too severe. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 November 
1975. 

 

The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to 
recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFM 39-12. The specific reasons were as follows: 

 

 a. On 29 July 1976, the applicant was charged with the 
possession of one ounce of marijuana. For this offense he 
received an Article 15. His punishment consisted of reduction to 
the grade of airman and forfeiture of $150.00 per month for two 
months. 

 

 b. On 3 August 1976, the applicant was placed on the drug 
rehabilitation program to help him remain clear of drugs. This 
program was completed on 15 October 1976 and on 22 November 1976, 
he was again charged with possession. 

 

 c. On 19 May 1977, the applicant was charged and pled guilty 
to the possession of over eight ounces of marijuana. He was 
fined $500.00, given a deferred sentenced and placed on probation 
for a period of three years. 

 



He was advised of his rights in this matter and waived his right 
to a hearing before an administrative discharge board and elected 
not to submit a statement on his own behalf. In a legal review 
of the case file, the assistant staff judge advocate found the 
case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. 

 

The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and 
directed the applicant be discharged. The applicant was 
discharged on 22 July 1977 with an under other than honorable 
conditions (UOTHC) discharge. He served 1 year, 7 months and 
28 days on active duty. His dates of lost time consisted of 
27 November 1976 to 6 December 1976. 

 

On 17 April 2013, a request for information pertaining to his 
post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for review 
and response within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, this 
office has received no response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2012-03740 in Executive Session on 30 May 2013, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03740 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 December 2012, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 April 2013.