,,	,..... ..

AIR FORCE DISCIIARGF. RF.VIF.W BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAMt: OF St:RV IC!: .•U:Mllt:R (LAST, FIRST M!IJl)U: INITIAL)

-GRADE

PERSONAL  Al'PFARANCF.
•::"1",,,--,:t","''·";:J;;":;":':"')"""'' °' o<rF7c'ol'NSEL ,\l\"D OR QRGANJZll. TlON
;-.,; '" -..··:"'Nh"'""'"
:	: x

···-·----·---·--+-"=='--'-'
X   RECORD REVJl£W
AOOKE.'iS ANH OK OR{;ANl./,J,.'l ilir•ro· COUNS.fL---···

__ _J 	

----·-----

1

MEJ\cffiERS SlTTINC

x x x
x

A92.35	A67.70	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE flOARD
2    ""Xl'PL!cA'ni."' >i·<iW)i<iRiFi'VVllffi':lWvOtilr'll})i;,-;;BlAfiGiEE---1
3·.   l.hrrl'.R <)F NOTlPICATlON

l!El\IUNG .Ct\TE
II Oct 02

C/l.SE!:"t:\IBER
t'D2002-0187

4	BRiF.F OF Pf<JfS(}NNEI . l-'D J·:
COUNSEL'S RELFASF TO Tfif' HC)ARll

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the drcisio11 of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFDCMR.

SAP/f>.URR
;;;i) C HREET WEST, SUITE 40
A ND(Jl ,PH AFR, TX 78151)-4142

At"HQ .-CJR:\10-2077, JAN 00	(F.P-V2)

SECRETARY Or THE AIR fORCI: PE!lSONNElCOllNCIL
A1R ¥0RCE I)ISCHAR(rE Rf:VH\V BOARD 1535 ('()f\>1M AND DK. EC WING. 3tm FLOOR ANDREWS AFB. MD 20762-7001
Previous-ediiion

AI R FORCE DISCH ARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE
.	CASE !\'UMBER

FD2002-0187	

GENER AL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

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

The attached bi:ief contains the available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.

l11c board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates mi
inequity or impropriety, which would justify a change of discharge. The applicant's issues are listed in the attached brief.
Issue 1. The applicant states that her discharge was bi1sed on one isolated incident in 39 mon ths of service with no other adverse actions. The ORB agreed that the applicant's discharge  was  based  on  a  single incident of misconduct; however, the Board found that the seriousness of that misconduct i.c,, drug abuse, outweighs the applicant's otherwise satisfactory service. The Board fom1d no evidence or inequ ity or impropriety on which to base a decision to upgrade.

Issue  2.  The applicant  contends  that  she could  have  been  rehabilitated  because  she met  the  seven criteria for retention listed in AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.55.2.1. The  B<Jard  found  lhal  i t  was  clear  from  lhe statement she provided in re8pOnse lo the Article 15 action that she is a recurren t marijuana user. Jn her response, the applican t admitted to smoking marijuana on 15 November 2001.  ln  addition,  in  an  OSI statemen t,  the  applicant  admitted  to  receiving  J  "shotguns"  of  marijuana  from  a  friend  on  22  November
2001.     The Board  concluded  the  mi sconduct  of the  applicant  appropriately  characterized  her term  or
service.

Issue 3. The applicant stated that her discharge was inequitable  because it was not treated in the same manner as other dmg abuse cases at Seymour Johnson AFB. The Board concluded that it would be inappropriate to compare the applicant's case to other drug abuse cases that may have been processed at the same time.

CONCLUSIONS;  The Discharge Review Board concludes thal the discharge was ctmsistent with the procedural and substantive requi remen ts of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

Inview of the foregoing finding the board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief