AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b} (6)	GRADE	
TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL APPEARAN CE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW	
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OFCOUNSEL	
YES	Nn			
	x			

M EM BER SITTJNG	VOTE OF THE BOARD	
	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	
(b} (6)						x	
						x	
						x	
						x	
						x	
ISSUES	A94.05	INDEX NUM8£R	A66.00	EXHIBITSSUBMrl'TED TO THE BOARD	
		1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	
		2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
		3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION	
		4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE	
			COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO Tl IE BOARD	
			ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	
			TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING	
HEARING DATE

20 Apr 2016	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00483			
APPLICANT'S!SSUEANlnHE BOARJ)"S DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARJl DISCUSSED ON nre ATTAOlEO AIR FORCE DISCHARGE	w BOAfU> Dl!.ClSLONAL RATIONALE.	
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)	---	
INDORSEMENT	DATE:  4121/2016		
TO:
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST,SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	FROM:
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORC£ DISCHARGE REVIEW BOAR!)
t!.lS COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3Rll Ft,OOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001		
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00483	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of his discharge characterization 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 characterization.

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 for conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance (Ecstasy) and wrongful use of a controlled substance (Methylene).

The applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  He claims that he made a mistake by using an alternate form of Ecstasy known as Methylone.  The applicant admits to using this substance, however contends that it was not i llegal at the time of use or possession.  Per AFI 36-3208, Chapter  5, paragraph  5.54, drug abuse  is the illegal, wrongful , or improper use, possession,  sale, transfer,
or introduction onto a military installation of any drug. The term drug includes any intoxicating substance, other than alcohol, that is inhaled, injected, consumed, or introduced into the body in any manner for purposes of altering mood or function.  The mem ber received an Article 15 for use of Methylone on multiple occasions and conspiring with another individual to manufacture Ecstasy. Based on applicant's statements, he knowingly used a substance that altered both his mood and function.  At the time of
discha r ge the member had served in the Air Force for six years and was well aware of the Air Force's zero tolerance policy for drugs. He admits in his response to the Article 15, dated 13 December 2011, that what he did was wrong and irresponsible. Therefore, t he characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

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