RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04270 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was going through a lot of hardships and problems at the time of his discharge. He used marijuana as a coping mechanism at some point, which ended his career. He was going through a tremendous amount of physical and emotional stress, marriage problems, health issues, financial issues, and was a victim of a burglary. He was later diagnosed with chronic Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD) with Moderate Depression by the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA). He was a sharp, well-performing airman who lost control when he was managing about seven additional duties along with handling his personal issues. A copy of the applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Documents leading to the applicant’s discharge are unavailable for review; however, his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, indicates the applicant was discharged from the Regular Air Force effective 17 April 2009 with a UOTHC discharge, and a narrative reason for separation of “Triable by Court-Martial.” On 14 September 2011, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s military service record, are contained in the evaluation by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C. On 26 March 2013, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit comments about his post-service activities (Exhibit E). In response, the applicant provided a character reference, Bachelor of Science certificate, Department of Veteran Affairs (DAV) membership form, and an American Legion Certificate of Nomination. The applicant’s response is included with his rebuttal at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states that after reviewing the applicant’s personnel records, their office was unable to find any documentation regarding his discharge. There is insufficient evidence contained within his military record to confirm the circumstances and facts surrounding his discharge; however, there is a presumption of regularity in which the applicant was afforded due process and the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. In his appeal to the AFDRB, the applicant claims he was told his discharge would automatically be upgraded after six months. Although their office cannot confirm what the applicant may have been told regarding an upgrade to his discharge service characterization, there is no automatic upgrade of service characterization due to the passage of time and each request for upgrade is decided by evidence presented by the applicant and the individual merits of the case. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing that would warrant a change to his characterization of service. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He was discharged because he had a single positive drug test for marijuana, which he regrets. This life-changing event was the only offense in his six and a half years of military service. He has made numerous efforts to personally manage his stress disorder, continues to better himself as a person, and is a positive citizen. He has been able to secure numerous job positions outside the healthcare environment, because he vowed to stay away from trauma scenes. The applicant’s complete rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ 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 agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency and considered the applicant's overall post-service activities and accomplishments; however, the evidence submitted was not sufficient 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 to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ 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-2012-04270 in Executive Session on 18 June 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04270 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Aug 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 3 Dec 12. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Dec 12. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Mar 13, w/atch. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, not dated, w/atchs.