RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-01039

	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  In the alternative, his narrative reason for separation “Misconduct-Drug Abuse” be changed.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He never received the “member one” copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and had to show the “member four” copy to his prospective employer, which presented a negative picture of his military service.  He has never used narcotics or illegal substances in his life.  He and his former spouse were at a party where she smoked marijuana, but he only consumed alcohol; however, they were both implicated for drug use by someone who attended the party.  He and his former spouse were directed to provide a urine sample.  His former spouse tested negative and he tested positive, but he believes the samples were mixed up; therefore, he was wrongly charged with drug abuse and would like this information erased from his records.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 30 July 1971.

DD Form 1569, Incident/Complaint Report, dated 5 June 1984, indicates that the applicant [and his spouse] purchased three, ¼-ounce bags of marijuana during the period 12-31 April 1984.

On 6 June 1984, the Base Urine Testing Monitor notified the applicant’s commander that the applicant’s urine drug screen was tested on 7 May 1984, and was found to be positive for marijuana.

On 3 July 1984 [amended 10 August 1984], the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend his discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The specific reason for this action was that the Air Force Office of Special Investigation identified the applicant as purchasing three, ¼-ounce bags of marijuana.  On 7 May 1984, the applicant was directed to provide a urinalysis sample.  The results of this test proved positive for marijuana.  On 12 June 1984, the applicant was reprimanded for illegal use of marijuana.  The commander informed the applicant that this action could result in his separation with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The commander indicated he is recommending the applicant receive an honorable characterization.  However, the discharge authority would make the final decision in this matter.

On 21 August 1984, the applicant offered a conditional waiver of his right to an administrative discharge board contingent on his receipt of no less than a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

On 14 September 1984, the staff judge advocate found the discharge action legally sufficient, and recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.  The staff judge advocate informed the discharge authority that the squadron commander's initial recommendation for an honorable discharge could probably be attributed to his belief that an honorable discharge was mandatory because the case file contained the results of a command-directed urinalysis.  An honorable discharge is not mandated in such cases, but AFR 39-10 does prohibit the use of a command-directed urinalysis for characterization of military service.  Therefore, in the applicant’s case, the urinalysis result may not be used to characterize his service but his possession of marijuana on three occasions during a one-month period and his letter of reprimand for public intoxication may be considered.  With those factors taken into consideration, a genera1 discharge is appropriate.  On 20 September 1984, the discharge authority approved the recommendation.

On 25 September 1984, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  His narrative reason for separation is “Misconduct-Drug Abuse.”

On 27 November 2017, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant 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 application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.   After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an injustice.  It appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the commander’s discretion.  Nor was the discharge unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  In the interest of justice, the Board considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, given the absence of post-service information from the applicant, the Board finds no basis to do so.  We note the applicant indicated that he did not receive all copies of his DD Form 214.  The Board is not the custodian for the applicant’s records; however, he may request copies of his DD Form 214 through The National Archives and Records Administration at https://www.archives.gov/veterans/.  In view of the forgoing, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2017-01039 in Executive Session on 10 May 2018:

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, dated 11 January 2017.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Post Service Clemency Letter, w/atch, dated 27 November 2017.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.