AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST, MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b) (6)	HEARING DATE
2017-08-10	CASE NUMBER FD-2016- 00547	
TYPE
General		PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
X	NON-PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND/OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND/OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL	
Yes	No			
	
X			

BOARD MEMBERS	VOTE OF THE BOARD	
	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	
(b) (6)					X	
(b) (6)	X					
(b) (6)					X	
(b) (6)	X					
(b) (6)					X	
(b) (6)						
ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED 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 THE BOARD	
			ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
			TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING	
APPLICANT’S ISSUE(S) AND THE BOARD’S DELIBERATIONS ARE SUMMARIZED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT	
Case heard at JB Andrews, MD.

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)	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00547	

GENERAL: The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to Honorable.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), but declined and requested the review be completed based on the available service record.

Pursuant to 10 USC §1553, the 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 examiner’s brief (provided to applicant only), extracted from available service  records, contains pertinent data regarding the circumstances and character of the applicant’s military service.

FINDING: The board found insufficient evidence of an inequity or impropriety that would warrant a change to the applicant’s discharge characterization.

DISCUSSION: The DRB, 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 changes are warranted. If applicable, the board can also change the applicant’s reenlistment eligibility code. 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 determine if the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.

The applicant’s record of service included one Article 15 for wrongfully using 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 contended the discharge was improper because he met and exceeded the requirements for the “seven criteria for retention” outlined in paragraph 5.54.4.2.1. of AFI 36-3208. The applicant also noted he was under the impression the Article 15 would be the only course of action against him.

The record indicated his commander did consider the “seven criteria for retention,” but concluded he failed to meet one of them. The board found no evidence to indicate the applicant was unaware of the Air Force policy of zero tolerance for drug use. It noted he had excelled during the time served before the misconduct occurred, but concluded his willful decision to use marijuana outweighed the positive aspects of his service.

The board is aware the applicant’s present service characterization renders him ineligible for Department of Veteran Affairs education benefits; however, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

CONCLUSION: The board found insufficient evidence of an inequity or impropriety that would warrant a change to the applicant’s discharge. Therefore, the discharge received by the applicant was deemed to be appropriate and his request was not approved.

The board recommends the applicant exercise his right to appeal the DRB’s decision to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records by requesting clemency based on in-service performance and post-service	

activities and accomplishments.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief