AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE 11\l' ilAL)	GRADE

X	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS M'D OR ORCANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x x x
x

A66.00

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLlCATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OFNOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMfffED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARJNO

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

17 Apr 2014	FD-2013-00759

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:

SAFIMRBR
550 CSTREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB,TX 781S0-4742

Sl:CRETARY OF THE AIR roRCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISO!ARCt: Rt:VlEW BOARD 1!35 COMMAND DR. EE WlNC,3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB. MD2t762-7081

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00759	

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:  Applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct -Drug Abuse

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident that occurred during a 72 hour period in his 2 years and 9 months of dedicated service. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for use of spice on divers occasion. The record shows that the applicant was identified during an OSI investigation after another individual who was selected for random urinalysis gave applicants name. The applicant admitted to experimenting with a banned substance. 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 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.

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.

Inview 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