AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRSf MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OFCOUNSEL

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x x x
x
x

A94.07

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

llEARJ.NG DATE	CASE NUMBER

17 Oct 2013	FD-2013-00461

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:

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

SECRETARY Of 11IE AIR fORCE PERSONNEL COVNOL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD IS35 COMMAND DR,Ef. WING, )RD FLOOR ANDREWS Afll, MD Wl62-1801

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00461	

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

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 applicant received a UOTHC, Chapter 4 (in Lieu of Trail by Court Martial. Applicant request his discharge be upgraded based on  his entire body of work during his Air Force career. He also acknowledges that his actions were wrong and he did not uphold his duties as a Non-Commissioned Officer and a member of the United States Air Force. The records indicated that on 22 and 24 may 2012, the applicant was questioned by OSI as part of an investigation into another airman's drug use. During the interview the applicant admitted to purchasing marijuana from this airman in question and distributing the marijuana to his brother who was visiting the applicant. According to AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.54, Misconduct: 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 four years and three 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.

In addition, the applicant also admitted to violating his known duties as a trusted agent on or about 3 January 2012 when he gave the airman who supplied him with marijuana notice outside of the required procedures of a urinalysis test. The Board concluded the applicant's misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. 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