AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

PERSONAL APPEARANCE
COtJNStt. . . NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION YES	No
x

x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF CO\INSEL

VOTE OFTHE BO

MEMBER SfITING	HON

OEN

UOTIIC

OTHER	DENY

x x
x x
x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.70

EXHIBITS SlJBl\DTIED. TO 'f	BOARD .r	. /•,
1	OllDER APPOINTING nm BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETIEROF NOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL' S RELEASE TO THEBOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPERECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARAN CE HEARING

MEARING DATE	Cl\S! NUMDl!R

27 Sep 2016	FD-2016-00022

::I	..	..

APPUCANrS!SSl.e AND 'JliEBOARD'SDECISIONAL llAT!ONALEAR.E DISCUSSED ON:n!E ATTACHED AIR !'ORCEDISCHMGE aEVIEW llOAII> DECISIONAi> llATIOllALE
•	: ;I

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

i •. •

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.

-----	--

TO:

SAFIMRBR
550 CSTREET WEST.SUITE 40
.RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

l'ROM:

SECRETARY OFTHE AIR FORCE PERSONNl:L COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOA.RD
153S COMMAND J>R, EE WING,  RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD lt762-1001

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

 	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00022	

The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge characterization to Honorable.

The applicant was offered apersonal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

Pursuant to 10 USC §1553 this board included a member who is a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, or a physician with training on mental health issues connected with post traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury and/or special training on mental health disorders.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDING: The Board finds insufficient evidence of an inequity or impropriety that would warrant a change to the applicant's discharge.

DISCUSSION: 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. Inreviewing 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 wrongful use of marijuana.

The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to determine if the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct - Drug Abuse. The applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one incident and unwarranted actions of a newly appointed First Sergeant. He feels that he served honorably for three years with the exception of the Article 15 for drug use. After review of the record, the Board found no evidence to indicate that the applicant was unaware of the Air Force policy of zero tolerance to drug use. The Board surmised the applicant's misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The DRB concluded that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim of inequity. The negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

A discharge is upgraded only if it is established that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge. After a thorough review of the record and advice from the mental health specialist, the Board found no indication that any mental health issues had an impact on the applicant's misconduct or on his discharge. Additionally, 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.

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