RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04705 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His character of service be changed from General, (Under Honorable Conditions), to Honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He would like to receive his Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefit so he can return to school. The applicant did not submit any supporting documents. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: 1. According to copies of documents extracted from the Automated Records Management System (ARMS), the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 July 2005. 2. On 21 April 2008, his commander notified him that he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force for Misconduct: Minor Disciplinary Infractions and Misconduct: Drug Abuse, under the provisions of Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208 Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.50.2. and 5.54. The specific reason for the discharge recommendation was: a. Between, on or about 22 December 2007 and on or about 7 March 2008, at his location of assignment, the applicant was involved in the following misconduct: (1) Wrongful use of oxycodone/oxymorphone, a Schedule II controlled substance. (2) Intentionally consumed alcohol while taking the prescription medications Vicodin, Tramadol, and Naproxen with the knowledge that consuming alcohol would increase the effects of the prescription medications. b. For these acts of misconduct, the applicant received punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ which consisted of a reduction to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C) and 15 days extra duty. c. On or about 31 March 2008, the applicant had an appointment with the squadron commander in his service dress. He arrived in a dirty uniform with glue on the sleeve. For this misconduct he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 1 April 2008. d. On or about 18 April 2006, the applicant failed to report to work at 0600. When he was contacted by phone at 0900, he claimed to be sick and did not report to work until 1030. For this misconduct, he received a Record of Individual Counseling (ROC) on 27 April 2006 3. On 21 April 2008, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander’s intent to discharge him and his right to consult counsel, submit statements on his own behalf or waive either of these rights. On 23 April 2008, the applicant opted to submit a statement on his behalf but did not indicate whether he would consult counsel or waive his right to consult counsel. 4. Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient the discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be discharged from the Air Force for Misconduct: Drug Abuse and Minor Disciplinary Infractions. The applicant was discharged on 6 May 2008, with a narrative reason for separation of “misconduct”, and was credited with 2 years, 9 months and 18 days of active duty service. 5. On 19 March 2009, the applicant submitted an appeal for upgrade of his discharge to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). The applicant was offered and declined a personal appearance with counsel, before the AFDRB. In his application, the applicant stated he was advised that after six months he would be eligible for an upgrade of his discharge. While a discharge may be upgraded after six months, the upgrade is not automatic. A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the Board can establish that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of the discharge. After a thorough review of the record, the Board found no evidence to justify an upgrade of the discharge characterization, reason for discharge or the reentry code. 6. On 17 June 2010, the AFDRB concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. In view of the forgoing findings the Board further concluded there was no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus, the applicant’s discharge should not be changed. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states due to the applicant's failure to obey orders and regulations such as failing to report to work on time and failing to report to his place of duty at all, he demonstrated that he is not able or willing to meet Air Force standards. Airmen are subject to discharge when there is evidence of one or more acts or patterns of misconduct. Based on the evidence, there was a legally sufficient basis for discharge. The Air Force's policy against drug abuse is clear - zero tolerance. 2. AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.49, (Minor Disciplinary Infractions), states that a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of infractions in the current enlistment makes an Airman subject to discharge. The applicant received an ROC and LOR in addition to receiving Article 15 punishment. When more than one basis for discharge exists, Para 6.19.4, requires the separation authority to determine the primary reason (basis) for separation. Of the two available bases for discharge, the applicant's commander designated Drug Abuse as the primary basis for separation. 3. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices in the processing of his separation. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the applicant's discharge to include his narrative reason for separation was appropriately administered and was properly reflected on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. The complete AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 11 January 2013 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). To date, a response has not been received. ________________________________________________________________ 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. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 this application in Executive Session on 23 July 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04705: Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 1 September 2012. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 19 December 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 January 2013. Dear: Reference your application submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2603 (Section 1552, 10 USC), AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04705. After careful consideration of your application and military records, the Board determined that the evidence you presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice. Accordingly, the Board denied your application. You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence for consideration by the Board. In the absence of such additional evidence, a further review of your application is not possible. BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL CHAIR Attachment: Record of Board Proceedings