AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b) (6)

GRADE

TYPE GEN

.;io.•..:

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

x	RECORD REVIEW

.$>- ;;«.  NAME Of COUNSEL AND OR ORCAN!ZATION
YES	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OFCOUNSEL

(b) (6)

MEMBER SITIING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A94.53

INDEX NUMBER

A66.00

1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OF NOTIFJCATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL' S RELEASE TOTHE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARJNC DAT[	CASE NUMBER

19May 2015	FD-2015-00006

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)

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ms COMMAND DR. EE WING, 3RD 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-2015-00006	

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: 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 one Article 15, three Letters of Reprimand and one Letter of Counseling. The misconduct included wrongfully possessing a certain amount  of  oxycodone; stealing oxycodone from another airman; observed speeding, changing lanes without signaling, using a cell phone, and crossing train tracks without stopping while driving a government vehicle; receiving a traffic ticket after using cell phone while operating a POV on base; derelict in performance duties,  displaying laziness and receiving a traffic ticket after traveling 20 miles an hour over the posted speed limit (25 mph in a 5 mph zone).

The applicant submitted no issues regarding the inequity or impropriety of his discharge.  The applicant does state that he has learned from his mistakes and cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits to further his education.  The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on January 10, 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.
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