AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

x	PERSONAL APPEARANCE

RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x

ISSUES

A92.21 A92.01 A94.55

INDEX NUMBER

A66.00

x x

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER 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  APPEARANCE  HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

20 Mar 2014	FD-2013-00685

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.

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78 I 50-4742

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-2013-00685	

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at Andrews AFB on 20 Mar 2014.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit # 5: College Transcripts

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: Applicant received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge for Misconduct - Drug Abuse.

The applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it did not take into accou1:- the good things he did while in the service.  The record indicates that the applicant pied guilty and was convicted by a  ummary Court Martial for use of marijuana and received an Article 15 for use of marijuana. During the course of the hearing the applicant took responsibility for his poor judgment. He explained to the Board that he was going through some personal issues at the time of his use. However, he did not make any excuses for his behavior. 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 ten years 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 stated that upon receipt of the Article 15 on 21 June 2009, his commander recommend him for an administrative discharge for drug abuse.  He stated that the discharge process was taking an extraordinary amount of time based on paperwork errors.  During this time, he was removed from his primary duties and used throughout his unit to complete "extra duties". He stated he was embarrassed by this and began to have some emotional issues.  After reviewing the record, the Board was unable to find any documentation regarding the discharge.  Therefore, the Board relies on the presumption of regularity and finds the characterization, reason for discharge and the reenlistment code were appropriate.  The Board noted it is not uncommon for members being processed for discharge to be removed  from their primary duties and utilized elsewhere in the unit.  Additionally, there was only a two-month time frame between the applicant's receipt of the Article 15 and his second positive urinalysis test for marijuana.  Based on the second positive urinalysis, the original discharge processing was stopped in order for the unit to pursue the Summary Court Martial.

The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and graduated from college.  However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the appIicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

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.

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