RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01987 COUNSEL: YES HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. Her separation program designator (SPD) code (SPD) of JKK (drug abuse) be changed to a favorable code that signifies no specific reason for separation. 3. Her reentry code (RE) of 2B (discharged under general or other-than-honorable conditions) to a favorable RE code 1, making her eligible to reenlist into the military. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She had ineffective legal counsel, was under duress and coerced by investigator to unjustly admit to guilt, there was insufficient evidence that an illegal substance was abused, she was unaware of any Air Force policy pertaining to synthetic drugs and did not violate any state law and or federal law at the time of the alleged offense. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 11 Mar 08. On 8 Mar 11, the applicant’s commander notified her of his intent to recommend her discharge for misconduct – drug abuse. The reason for the action was that during the period from 1 May 10 – 15 Dec 10, the applicant violated a lawful general order, dated 15 Apr 10, by wrongfully using and possessing some amount of spice, for which she 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 a right to submit statements on her own behalf. On 8 Mar 11, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and of her right to consult with legal counsel. On 25 Mar 11, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable condition) discharge, and was credited with 3 years and 15 days of active service. On 29 Nov 11, the applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have her discharge upgraded to honorable. The applicant’s case was heard in Washington D.C. on 14 Jun 12. The AFDRB denied the request, concluding the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that she was provided full administrative due process. On 31 May 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 D). On 17 Feb 15, the applicant requested that her case be administratively closed and, on 2 Mar 15, she was notified that her case was administratively closed, without prejudice, until such time that she was ready to proceed. On 10 Mar 15, the applicant requested that her case be re-opened and that processing of her case to the Board resume. Exhibits G, H, and I. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant’s commander notified her she was being separated under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (misconduct-drug abuse) with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Drug abuse for the purpose of this regulation is the illegal, wrongful, or improper use, possession, sale, transfer, or introduction onto a military installation of any drug. This includes improper use of prescription medication. The term drug includes any controlled substance in schedules I, II, III, IV, and V of Title 21 U.S.C, Section 812. It also includes anabolic/androgenic steroids, and any intoxicating substance, other than alcohol, that is inhaled, injected, consumed or introduced into the body in any manner for purposes of altering mood or function. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the SPD code, narrative reason for separation and characterization of service were consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In response, counsel contends that the OPR’s advisory does not address that the general order was not publicized or distributed at the wing level nor did the applicant’s commander make reference at any Commander’s Call to there being a policy regarding the use of synthetic drugs. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 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 the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. While we note Counsel’s rebuttal argument that the general order was not publicized or distributed at the wing level nor did the applicant’s commander make reference at any Commander’s Call to there being a policy regarding the use of synthetic drugs, other than argument and conjecture, neither the applicant, nor her counsel, has presented evidence that she should not have been reasonably aware that her actions were in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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-2014-01987 in Executive Session on 16 Apr 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01987 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Mar 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 19 May 14. Exhibit D. Clemency Info Bulletin, dated 31 May 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Aug 14. Exhibit F. Counsel Rebuttal, dated 22 Aug 14. Exhibit G. Email, Applicant, dated 17 Feb 15. Exhibit H. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Mar 15. Exhibit I. Email, Applicant, dated 10 Mar 15.