AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

X	RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

HON

GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

X*+ X*+ X*+
X*+

X*+

AOl.00 A94.05

()0

ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2   APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3  LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4   BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S  RELEASE  TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

29 Jan 2014

FD-2012-00048

Case scheduled to be heard in Washington, D.C. by Video Tele-Conference with applicant appearing at Robins AFB, GA.   The applicant declined the personal appearance and opted to have her application considered based on the record.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

*Narrative Reason and Authority
+RE Code

TO:

SAF/MRBR

.kMAN!S&-."'3"'"''"''""  ">!a="',_,,,...,,.           _

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)

Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2012-00048	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge service characterization to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDING: The Board unanimously voted to deny the applicant's requests to upgrade her characterization, change the reason/authority for her discharge, and change her re-enlistment code.

The Board did not find the applicant's submission to call into question the equity or propriety of her discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board did not identify any issues that would justify the applicant's requests.

ISSUE: The applicant contends that  her discharge and general (under honorable conditions) service characterization were inappropriate because her productivity and the quality of her service outweighed her misconduct, noting accomplishments during technical training, a deployment to Iraq, her contributions at home station, and in the years following her discharge. The record establishes that the applicant was involuntarily discharged after two years of service with an under honorable conditions (general) service characterization for drug abuse, IAW AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.54. The case file documents that the drug abuse was based on positive urinalysis results for marijuana, and that the applicant then claimed this was the result of a one-time use. The discharge notification attached other significant derogatory data based on disciplinary actions independent of the drug use. During her two years of service, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for disrespect, insubordination and dereliction of duty while deployed to Iraq; an LOR for poor judgment while allowing a civilian to possess marijuana in her car, which he drove on base with the applicant as a passenger; nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for stealing $1,931.6 from a Federal Credit Union; vacation of punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for being late for duty; and an LOR for again being late for duty during a separate, later incident. The Board notes the merit of certain aspects of the applicant's service and considered the applicant's responses to each of the above listed disciplinary actions. However, in balance with the totality of her record, the Board found the drug abuse discharge and general service characterization appropriate due to the significant negative aspects of the applicant's conduct that outweighed the positive aspects of her military record.

The applicant also contends that her discharge is improper  because it denies her the benefits of the Montgomery GI Bill. She notes that she signed a contract requiring 180 days of service and she paid into the GI Bill for a total of one year. The Board did not find the applicant's assertion of impropriety compelling. The applicant's military record includes her GI Bill contract, documented on DD Form 2366. The applicant signed a statement of understanding that receipt of education benefits was contingent upon separation with an Honorable service characterization. She did not meet this requirement, and, as discussed above, the Board found her discharge with a general service characterization appropriate.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes 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 foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief