RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-05051 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He feels that his discharge should be upgraded to reflect the true nature of his standing in society since his release from active duty. He has been of good character within his community in Portland, ME. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 12 Dec 66, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force for a period of four years. On 6 Jun 69, the commander notified the applicant of administrative discharge action for misconduct, for his unauthorized use of marijuana. The commander recommended an undesirable discharge. On or about 24 Jun 69, the applicant received an Article 15, for failure to go. His punishment consisted of a reduction in grade to airman and correctional custody for fifteen consecutive days. On 27 Jun 69, the commander notified the applicant of the administrative discharge board (ADB) hearing. The applicant waived his rights to be represented by counsel and to call witnesses. The ADB found the applicant had unlawfully used or possessed marijuana or other drugs and recommended he be discharged for unfitness with an undesirable discharge. On 8 Jul 69, the staff judge advocate reviewed and noted that the case file had slightly exceeded the time standards by two days; however, he noted no other errors or irregularities of sufficient seriousness and found the case file legally sufficient and the discharge authority approved an undesirable discharge with a character of service of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC). On 31 Jul 69, the applicant was discharged by reason of misconduct – pattern conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, with service characterized as UOTHC. He was credited with 11 months and 1 day of active duty service. On 7 Apr 72, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) concluded that the character of the applicant’s discharge should be upgraded to under honorable conditions. On 19 Aug 77, the applicant appealed to the AFDRB to have his discharge upgraded to honorable; however, the AFDRB denied his application. They concluded the discharge was proper and equitable, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. (See AFDRB Hearing Record at Exhibit B). A copy of the clemency bulletin was forwarded to the applicant on 7 Feb 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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 during the discharge process. Based on the 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 was discharged with a UOTHC character of service; however, in 1972, the AFDRB upgraded the applicant’s discharge service characterization to under honorable conditions, general; in 1977, the applicant appealed this decision again with no success. We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, based on the seriousness of the offenses which led to his administrative separation, the earlier decisions of the AFDRB, and the lack of post-service activity since his discharge, we do not find sufficient evidence to persuade us that an upgrade to an honorable discharge is warranted. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought in this 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-2014-05051 in Executive Session on 16 Feb 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Oct 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Feb 15, w/atch. 3 4