AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
	AFSN/SSAN	
	x	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	RECORD REVIEW	
	NAME OFCOUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORCANIZATION OFCOllNSEL	

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

+	X*

+	X*

ISSUES

A94.55 A94.05

l
i'
!
IND£)( NUMBt: K	!
A66.00

X*+

X+	*
X*+

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

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

06 Aug 2013

FD-2012-00622

Case heard in Washington , D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board 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.

* CHANGE RE CODE

I
!
I	I
I	I
:	I
Q:Z$Wtill"D

ETARIAJ

TO:

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISOlARGE REVIEW BOARD
15.15 COMMAND DR,EE WING,JRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 29762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2012-00622	

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel,  at Andrews AFB on 06 Aug 2013.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit #5: Applicant's Contentions

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

FINDING: The discharge is upgraded to Honorable, and the reason for discharge is changed to Secretarial Authority. Change of reenlistment code is denied.

ISSUE: The record indicates that the applicant was discharged for Misconduct-Drug Abuse. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. He also stated that peer pressure played a large role in his decision to give another airman twenty Euro to purchase Truffles which he later discovered where Psilocybin Mushrooms. The applicant testified that he accepted his role in the misconduct that subsequently caused his discharge from the United States Air Force. The record indicates the applicant received an Article 15 between on or about 10 March 2012 and on or about 17 March 2012 for attempting to possess a scheduled I controlled substance Psilocybin Mushrooms and conspiring with another airman by giving him 20 Euro to purchase and transport Psilocybin Mushrooms to him. After review of the applicant's record the Board concluded that his acts of attempted possession or conspiracy to possess do not fall within the meaning of "drug abuse" as stated in AFI 36-3208, par 5.54. According to this AFI, an Airman may be discharged for "... illegal, wrongful, or improper use, possession, sale, transfer, or introduction onto a military installation of any drug" and nowhere in the AFI does it list "attempt" or "conspiracy" as a basis for discharge. The applicant testified that he never used drugs, possessed drugs, or failed a drug test while in the Air Force. He also testified that he was led to believe that he would not be discharged from the Air Force, but after testifying in the court martial case against the Airman he gave twenty euro to purchase Psilocybin Mushrooms, he received notice that he was being discharged from the Air Force the very next day.

The Board found the applicant's discharge based on Drug Abuse inequitable because nowhere in the AFI does it list attempt" or "conspiracy" as a basis for discharge. During the Board hearing, the applicant provided sworn testimony during which he answered the Board members' pointed questions about the circumstances of his attempted purchase of Psilocybin Mushrooms. The Board carefully assessed his testimony in light of the evidence in the record. The respondent's credibility was supported by his willingness to make statements against his own interest.  The DRB concluded there was sufficient mitigation to substantiate upgrading the discharge to Honorable and change the reason for discharge. Although the Board does not condone applicant's misconduct, the Board finds sufficient mitigation and extenuation based upon the applicant's overall duty performance, letters of recommendation, and the compelling statement of the applicant to consider his discharge harsh. As such, the Board grants upgrade of discharge to honorable and the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority.

CONCLUSION: 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.	

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board concludes that the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge and the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority. The Board did not agree to change the reenlistment code.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief