AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MlDDl,E INITIAL)

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANl7..ATION

MEMBERS SITTING

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION o ·COUNSF.L

x x x x x

INDEX NUMBER
A93.09, A92.37, A92.35	A66.00

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF
J	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

HEARING DATE
02-10-29

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0155

4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
SEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD

REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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

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 !'>UMBER

FD2002-0155	

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 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 or that provided by the applicant substantiates an impropriety or inequity that would justify an upgrade of the discharge to honorable.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for misconduct, namely drug abuse (marijuana), for which member received an Article 15. Member also had a Letter of Counseling  for missing a mandatory Commander's Call formation, and had a Letter of Reprimand for leaving his duty section for 6 hours. Of his four Enlisted Performance Reports, two were rated an overall "3' and one of those was a referral that noted his failure to obey regulations, his being found asleep on post three times, driving without insurance and on a suspended license, and being counseled for being late to work three times in one month. The record shows that at the time of the discharge member consulted counsel yet waived his right to submit  statements  in  his  own behalf He now infers his illegal marijuana use was a lapse of judgment due family problems and stress he experienced. He also notes he used marijuana twice; this would have rendered member ineligible for retention because multiple incidents of illegal drug use could not be viewed as "experimental" as required by the retention criteria. Furthermore, member did not request he be considered for retention at the time of the discharge, and had he, the burden would have been his to show he met the seven retention criteria. At the time of the discharge, the Air Force's drug policy was well publicized and members were continually made aware that illegal drug use was not tolerated. Marijuana use is viewed as a very serious failure to meet Air Force  standards. The Board noted that because drug abuse is not compatible with Air Force standards, the characterization of service he received is warranted.

Applicant cited his desire to receive his G.l. Bill education benefits as justification for an upgrade. While the Board was sympathetic to the impact of the loss of these benefits on applicant, this is not a matter of equity or propriety that warrants an upgrade.

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