AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AMN

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A94.53 A93.0l

INDEX·NUMBER

A66.00

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

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

17 Oct 2013	FD-2013-00440

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

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.

TO:

SAFIMRBR
SSO CSTREET WEST,SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

FROM:

SECRETARY OFTHIAIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHAllGE REVIEW BOARD 1$)5 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-2013-00440	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

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 denies the upgrade of the discharge.
The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant  substantiates  an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE: The record indicates that the applicant was discharged for Misconduct-Drug Abuse. The applicant admits she made a mistake and thinks one mistake should not affect the rest her life. The records indicated the applicant was found guilty in a Special Court Martial for wrongfully using marijuana between on or about 18 June 2007 and on or about 18 July 2007. The applicant was entitled to an administrative discharge board; however the applicant subsequently submitted a conditional waiver of her rights to a discharge board that her Commander rejected on 7 March 2008. The applicant then submitted an unconditional waiver of her rights to a discharge board, but offered no other statements in response to her discharge. According to AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.54, Mi,sconduct: Drug Abuse, drug use is incompatible with military service and Airman who abuse drugs one or more times are subject to discharge. Drug abuse for the purpose of this regulation is the illegal, wrongful, or improper use, possession, sale, transfer, or introduction onto a military installation of any drug. This includes improper use of prescription medication. The term drug includes any controlled substance in schedules I, II, III, IV, and V of Title 21 U.S.C., Section 812. After review of the record, the Board found no evidence to indicate that the applicant did not know right from wrong or that in his seven years and ten months of service was unaware of the Air Force policy of zero tolerance to drug use. The Board found the negative aspects of the willful misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of the applicant's performance and concluded that the discharge was appropriate.

The applicant cited her desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade. The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, she signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on July 24, 2000) that she understood she must receive an Honorable discharge to receive future educational entitlements. The Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits was having on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

Applicant contends that she should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake she made when young.  The DRB recognized the applicant was 26 years of age when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence she was immature or did not know right from wrong.  The Board opined the applicant was older than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct. The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

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