AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE INql.AL)

.   GRADE

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

x	RECORD REVIEW
ADORE$ AND OR ORCANIZATION OF COUNS&L

MEMBER    SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY

ISSUES

A92.35

INDEX NUMBER	A66.00

x• x•

1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW Of DISCHARGE
3	LETIER 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 APPEARAN CE HEARING

HEARINC DATE	CAS£NUM8ER

to Jan 2014

FD-2013-00581

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 subm it an application to the AFBCMR.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

*Narrative Reason and Authority

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781504742

FROM:

SEC.R.tTARY OFTHE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING,JRD fll.OOR
ANDREWSAFI.MD 207'2 7001

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

Board suggested the applicant contact his local Veterans Administration for guidance on entitlements.

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.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00581	

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

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  and  to  change  the  reason  and  authority  for discharge is denied.

ISSUE: Applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct - Drug Abuse

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident. The record indicates that the applicant received an Article 15 for wrongful use of marijuana.  The record shows that the applicant was identified through a positive urinalysis for THC.  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 five years and seven 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 contends he was placed in "double jeopardy" by receiving and serving out his Article 15 punishment followed by an involuntary discharge.  IAW AFI 36-3208, Administrative  Separation of Airmen, paragraph 6.2.1.4, involuntary discharge processing is mandatory when the basis for the discharge is drug abuse unless there is an approved waiver.  The applicant was notified and acknowledged receipt of the discharge on 26 November 2012.  In response to the discharge, the applicant contended he met the seven retention criteria for drug abuse; however his commander found that he did not meet the retention criteria
and did not request a waiver of the discharge.  The applicant was medically cleared for discharge on 27 November 2012 and properly discharged from the USAF on 19 December 2012.

The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification  for upgrade.  The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on May 16, 2007) that he understood he 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.

Although the applicant may not be entitled to educational benefits, he may be entitled to medical care.  The