AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANJZA TION

MEMBERS SITTING

X   RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

x x x
x
x

HEARING DATE
02-08-27

CASE NUMBER
FD2002--0128

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLJCATJON FOR REVIEW OF DJSCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTJFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
f)ITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to a 11ersonal appea rance with/without counsel, The right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

SAFI  I
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

AFHQ FORM 0-.2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

SECRETARY Of THE AlR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AlR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1.535 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

FD2002-0128	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge honorable.

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 lead ing to 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 identify any.

Issues. Applicant received an Under Other Than  Honorable  Conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  for  drug abuse. Member had two Articles 15; his misconduct included driving a government vehicle into an aircraft causing significant damage in excess of $18,800.00, wrongfully using marijuana, and making two false statements. Member also had a referral Airman Performance Report rated an overall "6." At the time of the discharge proceeding, applicant invoked his right to an administrative discharge board. The Board found applicant did commit the marijuana offense and also damaged a mil itary aircraft and a military vehi cle. They recommended he receive the UOTHC discharge without offer of probation and rehabilitation. The chain of command concurred with the board. In view of the seriousness of the offenses for which applicant was discharged, and the fact that he requested and received all of his full due process rights, the Board could find no inequity or impropriety that warrants an upgrade or change of discharge.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent wit h 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