AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

TYPE  GEN	x	PERSONAL APPEARANCE

RECORD REVIEW

YES	No

x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

X*+

X*	+

X*+

X*+

X*+

;00

1  ORDER APPOINTING TH E BOARD
2   APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S  RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBM ITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING  OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE  HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

04 Apr 2014	FD-2013-00599
•	?TAE fi'Soa;::1.0NAL RA'rlONALSA !iUSSE N'fttE_r!\	AJR FORCE   .
Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board 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.

+ CHANGE RE CODE

. " T U\D TTV TO SECRETARIAL .

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD 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-2013-00599	

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  appeared  and  testified  before  the  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB),  without  counsel,  at Andrews AFB on 04 Apr 2014.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit #5: Character reference letter

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDING:   The Board  grants the request for the upgrade of the discharge and to change the reason and authority for discharge.  The Board denies the request to change the reenlistment code.

ISSUE:   Applicant received a General discharge for Fraudulent Entry: Drug Abuse

The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because he was not guilty of the misconduct.  The records indicated the applicant was discharged for a defective enlistment because an investigation revealed that he knowingly withheld information about and misrepresented his past use of illegal drugs when he applied for admission to the United States Air Force.  The applicant testified he was going through a  stressful divorce.  His wife was in the process of moving some of her things out of their apartment and came across some pipes used to smoke marijuana.  She called security forces personnel and made a statement that
the pipes belonged to her husband, but she believed he had stopped smoking marijuana since entering the Air Force. Additionally, in a sworn statement, she stated that he had smoked pot many times before entering the military.  The applicant stated the pipes belonged to his sister and had gotten mixed up in some storage
boxes upon his PCS to Germany.  His sister provided a statement that the pipes did belong to her.  The applicant did not receive any punishment for the pipes being found in his apartment.

There was evidence in the record that the applicant's wife contacted his ADC via email and asked what the legality of a statement retraction would be, and whether or not it would be considered perjury to make a statement in a word document retracting previous statements she made to the police.  Additionally, the applicant was drug tested during the investigation and never had a positive result.  After a complete and thorough review of the applicant's records and consideration of his testimony, the majority of the Board found the discharge to be inequitable based on the conflicting statements made by his wife at the time and his honesty with the Board.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board concludes that the overall quality of the applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge and the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief