AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NA ME OF SERVICE .l\LE.l\IBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSX/SSAN
(b)(6)	(b)(6)
TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEA RANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME Of' COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION Of COUNSEL
YF,S	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEM BER SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
(b)(6)	x
x x x
x
ISSUES	A94.53	I NUEX NUMBER	A67.70	EXH IBITSSUBMITTED TOTHE BOARD
1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2  APPLICATION FOR REVTEW OF DISCHARGE
3  LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BR IEF OF PERSONNEL FlLE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHISITS SUBM n-rno AT llM£ OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING  OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CAS£ NUMti R

19 Mar 2015	F0-2014-005 17
AJ>PclCAV. r'S ISSUE ANO THE BOARD'SDECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATIACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONALRATIONAL, E.
I
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.

(b)(6)

·-

1NDORS£MENT	DATE:  3127/2015
TO,	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OF TUE AIR FORCE PERSONNEi, COUNCIL
AIR FORCE: OISCHARC£ R£VIEW 9-0ARD
550 C SlREET WEST,SUITE 40	15 COMMAl\'D OR, EE WING,3RO FLOOR
RANDOLPll AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDR.E\VS AFB, MD 20762·7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2014-00517	

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

The appl icant 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 applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct -Drug Abuse

The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, is authorized to change the characterization of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to  include evidence submitted by the applicant.  The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The applicant's record of service included an Article 15 and a Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment.  His misconduct included wrongfu l use of marijuana.

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 23 April 2010) that he understood  he must receive an Honorable discharge to receive future educational entitlements.  The Board was sympathetic to the impact from the loss of these benefits to the applicant; however, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.  The record shows that the applicant was identified by a positive urinalysis result that was used for the Article 15 and a subsequent positive urinalysis was used to vacate the suspended punishment.  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.  A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the Board can establish that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.  After a thorough review of the record, the Board found no evidence to justify an upgrade of the discharge characterization.

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