AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b) (6)
TYPE	I	PERSONA L APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME Ot'COUNS&L AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDR&SS AND OR ORGANIZATJON OF COUNSEL
YES	No	(b) (6)
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
(b) (6)	x
x x
x x
ISSU&S	A95.00	IND£X NUMBER	A75.00	EXHmlTS SUBMITTED TO mE 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 THE BOARD
ADDITIONA L EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

28 Sep 2016	FD-2016-00072
APPUCANT'SISSUE AND11JEDOARD'SDECISIONALRATIONALEARE  DISCUSSEDON1llEATTACHED AIRFORCEDISCHARGEREVJEWBOARDDEOSIONAL   RATIONALa

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)
.

TO:u

I	./-

INDORSEMENT	DATE:  9129/2016
FROM:

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY OFTHE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUJTE 40	ts35 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD n-OOR
RANOOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANOR.EWS AFB, M.0 20762·7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00072	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of 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 .

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 applicant's former commander preferred one charge and four specifications for wrongful use of psilocybin mushrooms;  marijuana;  3,4-Methylrndioexymethaphetamine  (MDMA/Ecstasy);  and cocaine. The applicant submitted a formal request to separate administratively rather than facejudicial action. The request included the applicant's acknowledgement that he could receive a discharge with an Under Other Than Honorable  Conditions  (UOTHC)  service characterization.  Subsequently,  the  applicant's commander and chain of command approved the Chapter 4 (discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial) request with a UOTHC service characterization. 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 contends impropriety with his discharge because he had been falsely accused by another Airman of doing drugs.   Additionally, the applicant's contention is based on unproven allegations coupled with negative results from administered drug tests.  Furthermore, he asserts he had an exceptional career and highlighted receipt of the Air Force Achievement Medal and Good Conduct Medal and provided enlisted performance reports as supporting documentation.  The DRB opined that, through the administrative actions taken, the applicant willfully requested an administrative discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and was aware of the potential UOTHC service characterization.	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.