RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04737 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not given an opportunity to adequately defend himself during the discharge proceedings, which involved only his sergeant and commander. He was never given the opportunity to discuss what took place, that he inadvertently ingested marijuana at a family gathering, and was later told by his former spouse that the random drug test was initiated because she had called his commander. Had he had a chance to defend the action, the outcome would have been different. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the applicant’s military personnel records, he initially entered the Regular Air Force on 20 Sep 71. On 29 Apr 86, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to recommend his discharge for misconduct – drug abuse. The reason for the action was that during the period 9 Jan 86 through 15 Jan 86, the applicant used marijuana, as evidenced by a positive result on a urinalysis submitted during an inspection test, for which he received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The letter of notification indicated the applicant had a right to consult with legal counsel and that he had a right to appear before an administrative discharge board. If he waived his right to an administrative discharge board, he still had the right to submit statements on his own behalf. On 29 Apr 86, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and of his right to consult with legal counsel. He subsequently submitted a request for a conditional waiver of administrative discharge board proceedings, provided he receive no less than a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 12 May 86, the discharge case was found to be legally sufficient. On 21 May 86, the discharge authority accepted the applicant’s conditional waiver and concurred with the commander’s recommendation to furnish the applicant a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 23 May 86, the applicant was so discharged and was credited with 14 years, 8 months, and 4 days of total active service. On 27 Jun 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of this case; however, we find no evidence or an error or injustice that occurred during the discharge processing. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s discharge was carried out in accordance with the directive under which it was affected and, despite his uncorroborated assertions to the contrary, that he was provided full administrative due process. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence relating to the applicant’s activities since leaving the service, we have no basis to determine whether his contributions to his community are sufficient to overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged. Therefore, in the absence of evidence the discharge was disproportionate to the circumstances, there was an abuse of discretionary authority, or the applicant was deprived of rights to which he was entitled, we find no basis to recommend favorable consideration of the application. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material 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-2013-04737 in Executive Session on 23 Sep 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Oct 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jun 14.