NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

-GRADE

.A.FSN./SSAN

TYPE

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVI EW BOARD HEARING RECORD

, .•.

YES	NO
x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

X   RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

GEN

UOTHC

x x x x

HEAIUNG DATE
3 JUN 03

A66.00

CASE NUMBER.
FD2002-0130

ORDER APPOINTING TI-IE BOARD APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
LETTER OF NOTIFICATION BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
·LEASE TO TIIE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMl'ITED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAl'E RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

REMARKS
Case heard at Scott AFB, Illinois.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submitt an application to the AFBCM R.

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, 3RD 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 NUMBER

FD2002-0130	

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

The applicant's appeal was heard by the Discharge Review Board (DRB), at Scott AFB, IL on June 2003. The applicant did not appear.

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

FINDINGS:    Upgrade of discharge to Honorable is denied.

The Board finds that neither the  evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an impropriety or an inequity that would justify upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUES: The applicant was discharged with a General Discharge for misconduct and, more specifically, drug abuse. Member received an Article 15 for use of ecstasy, a Schedule I controlled substance. After being served with notice of the discharge the applicant neglected to submit statements or consult counsel. Applicant now states that he should have been given an honorable discharge because he was led to believe he was being given an honorable characterization. The DRB, however, could discern no evidence of impropriety in the processing of his discharge case. Nor was there any other indication of an inequity or impropriety of any other sort. The DRB concluded  that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate given the nature of the applicant's misconduct.

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.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief