••
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVrnw  BOARD HEARTNG  RECORD

NA. U: 0¥ s£RVIC!l MEMBER (LAST, FTRST MllH>l.1>: INlTlALi.. .

I	It Ill 7 111'1 Fl IT ·
' 'Yl'r:
GEN

x x x

:   1$$\!ES
•    A94.39, A94.53. AOl.43

INDEX !\TMIH!R
A72.00	1	ORDER APPO!NTil'O THE BOAR!)
2	APPLICATION rnR R<:vmw or rnsi:H.A1w1:
3	iifrn:R oF NOTIFICATION

HEARING DATE
02-09·17

REM.ARKS

('.AHE"Wiiifir.R
FD200HI075

-·::fl.l/i.TIAt'Ji!:D A
. --···

4	flRTEF OF PERSONN EL l'l l .E-	-
COUNSEL'S RELE ASE TO TI!ll BOA. U>	1
ADDIJr\ )'\l:A.r Jo:XHlBITS SL'B1117TEJ ) AT rtt..!E OF
PER$(':11\7AI. APP!;Al{./\:'.\'CE

TAPE RECOR Dll'f(i ()i;-PERSr::n,;AL A?YhT(ANCE HEARING

Caw heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of!he Board, the right to a personal  aJlpcarnnce with/without counsel, and the right to
: suhmit an aJlplication to the AFBCM R.

SAFIMIRR
550 C STREET WES , SUITE 40
RA.. DOfJPH AFB, TX 781 .50-4742

SF£RETARY OF THE NR FORCE PERSON N El. COUNCIL AlR FORCE DISCHARG£ REVIEW BOARD
!S3 COMMND DR. EE Wl'IO. 3"" FLOOJ{
ANDREWS At'B, MD W762·702

AFHQ FOR.'.\f 0·2077, JAN 00

-(EF"-'"v'2"') 	

Previous edition will be used.

..	•

A I R FO RCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOAR D DECIS IONA L RAT I ONA LE	<'ASI( :'\l tJ,\1Bt:n

FD2002-0075	

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

The applicant  was offered  a  personal  appeara nce before  the Discharge  Revi ew Board  hu t  declined  to exercise this right.

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

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The Board finds the applicant submitted  no issues contesting the equity or propriety  of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to ident ity any.

Issues.  Appl icant recei ved an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge pursuant to his request to be discharged in .l ieu of trial by court martial, apparentl y for drug abuse.  Although the discharge records are missing, there is indicat ion member was convicted by special court martial for drug abuse, but did not receive a punitive discharge.  Furthermore, there are entries in member's medical records ind icating he was entered into drub rehabilitation and counseli ng following a positi ve urinalysis for cannabis use.  It appears this particular use was that which resulted in the court martial charges that member req uested discharge in lieu of.  The Board concluded member's mi sconduct was an extremel y significant depa1iure from conduct expected of all military members, and as an NCO at the time, member would have been well aware of the Air Force's zero tolerance policy  for dmg abuse.  The Board further notes that appl icant voluntarily submitted his request for discharge in li eu of trial by court matiial, thus not attempti ng to establish his innocence, and in doing so acknowledged his characterization of service could be deemed
under other than honorable conditions; in accordance with discharge regulations, airmen discharged u nder these circumstances usually do have their service characterized as UOTHC.  Additionall y, since t he discharge documents are not available for review, and lacking any evidence from the applicant to the contrary, the Board must rely on the presumpt ion of rei,'lllarity and found no wrongful action by the Air Force, and finds the discharge proper and without basis for upgrade.

CONCLUSIONS:   The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent wit h the procedural and substantive requ irements of the discharge regulation and was wit hin the d iscretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrati ve due process.

In view of the foregoi ng find ings the board farther concludes that there exi sts no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief