AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME Ol<' SERVICE MEMBE'R (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAi,)

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

AJ<'SN/SSAN

I! 1111111•
X  RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION Ot' COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING
x x x x x

A92.ll,  A92.03, A92.15, A92.19, A93.09, A92.37

HEARIN(> DATE
10 JUL 03

INDEX NUMBER
A74.00

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-00525

1
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW Of DISCHARGE
3	LETTER  OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PF.RSONNF.L FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDfflONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDfNG OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

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

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE RF.VIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762·7002
Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-00525	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to General (under honorable conditions).

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

The attached brief contains 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 received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge pursuant to his resignation in lieu of trial by court martial, apparently for drug abuse.  Applicant noted his periods of honorable enlisted service, his community involvement while in the Air Force, and other accolades and achievements while in the Air Force.  He further noted his wife's breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, which led to mental stress and poor judgment  regarding his use of an illegal substance as a coping mechanism.  This was subsequently revealed via a positive random urinalysis.  While the Board agreed that except for the drug abuse, applicant's performance while in the Air Force was good, they also concluded member's misconduct was incompatible with Air Force standards and an extremely significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  As an officer at the time, member would have been well aware of the Air Force's zero tolerance policy for drug abuse.  For the period of service under review, his misconduct was sufficient reason for receiving a UOTHC discharge.  The Board further notes that applicant voluntarily submitted his resignation in lieu of trial by court martial, thus not attempting to establish his innocence or present his extenuating or mitigating factors.  In doing so he acknowledged that under these circumstances his characterization of service could be deemed under other than honorable conditions in accordance with discharge regulations, wherein airmen and officers so discharged usually do have their service characterized as UOTHC.  Furthermore, since the discharge documents are not available for review, and lacking any evidence from the applicant to the contrary, the Board must rely on the presumption of regularity and found no wrongful action by the Air Force, and finds the discharge proper and without basis for upgrade.

If he can provide additional documented information to substantiate an issue, the applicant should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  Ifhe should choose to exercise his right to a personal appearance hearing, the applicant should be prepared to provide the DRB with factual evidence of the inequity and any exemplary post-service accomplishments and contributions to the community.

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