AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD		
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE		
		X	RECORD  REVIEW	

x	(b) (6)	ADDRf.SS AND OR ORCANl:tATION OF COUNSEL

(b) (6)	

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY

X*+ X*+
x•+

X*+

ISSUES

A92.0l

INDEX NUMBER

A62.00

X*+

AOl.07	1 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

HEAJUNCDATE	CASE NUMBER

02 Aug 2013	FD-2013-00436
- --- -	-  -	-	-	-   -	- -	--	-

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

-- - ----·--   ,	,	----;	
,		

--- - :.-t'7';-:-
' · : ' ,  '	' : 'I'

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

FROM:

SECRETARY OFTHE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR PORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1$15COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 10761-7901

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00436	

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 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 request for the upgrade of the discharge, to change the reason and authority for discharge, and to change the reenlistment code is denied.

ISSUE:  Applicant received a General discharge for Fraudulent Entry

Applicant contends discharge was improper because he was directed by his NCO leadership to waive his right to legal representation.  Additionally, he states his discharge is inequitable because it did not take into account the good things he did while in the service.  The applicant admitted to using cocaine approximately four times between November 2002 and January 2003 in a sworn statement on an AF Form 2519 (Sensitive Compartmented Information Pre-Screening Interview), dated 24 February 2004, and in a statement dated
14 May 2004.  However, his records indicated the applicant deliberately misrepresented himself and concealed these facts on the AF Form 2030 (USAF Drug and Alcohol Abuse Certificate), Section II, signed by the applicant on 27 February 2003, DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing), questions 26, sighed by the applicant on 27 February 2003 and on the Standard Form 86 (Questionnaire for National Security Positions), question 24a signed by the applicant on 27 Feb 2003.  After a complete and thorough review of the applicant records and the information provided by the applicant the Board found the applicant's contention of impropriety to have no merit.  The applicant was notified of his right to consult legal counsel on 24 May 2004, when he was served with his discharge notification.  The applicant consulted counsel on 28 May 2004 and submitted a statement on his own behalf. Furthermore, the DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation and other accomplishments.  They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of
the applicant's duty performance.   The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

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