AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE I   JTIAL)	GRADE
(b) (6)

TYPE	I	PERSONAL APPEARAN CE	x	I	RECORD  REVlEW
COUNS&L	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	/\DDRESS AND OR ORCANIZATION OP COUNSEL
YES	No

(b) (6)	(b) (6)
x

VOTEOFTHE BOARD

MEM BER SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
(b) (6)	x
>-
x
>-
x
>-
x
>-
x
ISSlJES	A94.55	INO£X.  NUMBER	A75.00	EXHJBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
1 ORDER APPOTNTING THE BOARD
2 APPLICATION FOR REV!EW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTlFICA TION
4	BRlEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL   APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HE/\RING DATE	CASE NUMBER

19 May 2015	FD-2015-00022
APPLIC/\NT"S lSSUt:/\NDTHE HOARJ.n DECISIONAL RATIOl'IALE ARE DISCUSSED ON THE /\TTACHED AIR FORC!l DISQIARGE lU;VIEW BOARD DECISIONAL R/\TIONALE.

Case heard in Washington , D.C.

Advise appl icant of the decision of the Board, the right to a persona l appearance with/without counsel, and the right to subm it an application to the AFBCMR.

(b) (6)	·-

	-		

TO:	lNDORSEMENT		
fROM:	DATE: 7110/ZOIS

SECIU".TARY OPTHEAJR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL	 		

SAFIMRBR

AJR FORCE OISCH/\RGE REVIEW 80/\RO

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	ISJS COMM.ANO OR, EE WING13RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB.TX 781 50-4742	/\NOREIVS /\FB, lO 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00022	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board  (ORB) 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 discharge is upgraded to general.

ISSUE: The applicant received an Under Other than Honorable Discharge - Chapter 4, In Lieu of Trial by Court Martial

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.

Applicant's counsel states that the discharge characterization has been grossly and inequitably mischaracterized by an Other Than Honorable discharge. He states that the discharge does not reflect the quality of his service in applicant's military records. Applicant discharge was IAW AFI 36-3208, Request for Chapter 4, discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court Martial. Charge sheet dated January 16, 2014, listed a violation of Article l l 2a, wrongful use of cocaine. After a thorough review and complete consideration of the information contained in the record, the Board concluded there was an in inequity in the applicant's discharge warranting an upgrade to a General discharge. At the time of discharge, the legal office had not received a Report oflnvestigation from Security Forces or any other documents pertaining to the investigation. Besides testimony from applicant stating that he has never used drugs and a positive urinalysis, that testimony and evidence, yield little evidentiary value in proving the applicant's use of cocaine or any other illegal drugs. Based on a thorough review of the facts surrounding the basis for
discharge and a detailed scrutiny of his military records, a majority of the DRB found the characterization of discharge received by the applicant to be inequitable.

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.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board concludes that [the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by a discharge Under Honorable Conditions (General) under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief