AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVJCE MEMBER (LAST, FJRST MID.OLE INITIAL)	AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANlZATION	ADDRESS AND OR 0RGANJ7ATION OF COUNSEL

VOTE OF THE BOA.RD GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

,;·, .

DENY
x x x
x
x

INDEX NUMBER
A94.53	A66.00	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLlCA TION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETIER OF NOTIFICATION
2	
HEARING DAn:
03-04·30

CASE NUMBER
FD2002 0522	RD
TIME OF

Al'P1'.lc;;:A '$1SSUE ANDlHli BOARD'S DECISIONAL ]lATIONA:L A.RE PISQJ   EDON THE ATIAOiED

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
DECISIONALMUONAU!.

REMARKS

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance 'With/without counsel. DD Form 149 submitted. The case will be forwarded to the AFBCMR for further processing.

SAF/MIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3IID FLOOR ANDREWS  AFB,  MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUM.IU:R

FD20020522	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board but declined to exercise this right.

The attached brief conta1ns available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.
The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for commission of a serious offense, namely drug abuse. Member had a commander-directed urinalysis that came back positive for the presence of cocaine above the DoD cut-off level. Furthermore, applicant was a noncommissioned officer at the time of this misconduct. Member had other misconduct such as failing to pay his rent on time, failing to pay his NCO c1ub bill, disrespect to a senior noncommissioned officer, conduct unbecoming a noncommissioned officer, making a suicidal gesture for which he had to be air evacuated to Wilford Ha11 Medical Center for in-patient treatment, and he had a second urinalysis positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. For these incidents, member had several Letters of Counseling and Reprimand, and an Unfavorable Information File. During this period of service, member made statements that he didn't care about the Air Force, wouldn't take his Weighted Airman Promotion System test, and would write his own discharge if the Air Force didn't give him a discharge. During his mental health treatment, he stated the cocaine incident was purposeful to cause his discharge and he would do anything to achieve a discharge, even if it was dishonorable. He felt his duties as a military cook were demeaning. Member was diagnosed as having phase of life and occupational problems, and a personality disorder not otherwise specified, with anti-social and narcissistic traits. A prompt administrative separation was recommended. At the time of the discharge member consulted counsel and waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf. Additionally, the Air Force's drug policy was well publicized and members were continually made aware that illegal drug use was not tolerated. The Board noted that drug abuse is not compatible with Air Force standards; the seriousness of member's misconduct and record of other misconduct warrant the characterization of service he received. The Board could find no wrongful action by the Air Force and concludes the discharge was proper.

CONCLUSIONS: 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 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, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief