AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

X	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OFCOUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

OEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x
x
x

ISSUES

A93.17
A93.21

INDEX NUMBER

A66.00

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

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

17 Oct 2013	FD-2013-00487

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.

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

SECRETARY OFTIJE ADI FORCE PERSONNEL COUNOL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOAJlD ISJSCOMMAND DJl,EE WING, JR.I> FLOOR ANDRl!WS AFB,MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00487	

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.

ISSUE: 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. Applicant contends that in July 2012 he returned home after spending eighteen months in Italy and was tired, stressed, and dealing with a bad headache when he made bad choice by using marijuana. He also stated that he understands that drug use has no place in the military ·and regrettably made the wrong choice on how to cope while in the military. The applicant also talked about his medical history concerning a malformation in the brain and the surgery that has subsequently followed his diagnosis. At the time of discharge the applicant was no longer undergoing a Medical Evaluation Board review and was no longer in code 37 status, which made him free for separation, PCS, or TDY. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for wrongfully using marijuana on or about 5 July 2012 at or near La Habra California and was drunk and disorderly on or about 16 July 2013 at or near Aviano Air Base, Italy. 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 two years and nine 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 to the non-judicial punishment for Drug Abuse, applicant received a Letter of Reprimand. His misconduct included wearing an n unauthorized item, specifically a tongue ring. 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.

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