. '	AIR  FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

-· II	I 1•
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X    RECORD REVIEW

NAME 01' COUNSEL AND OR ORGANl7.ATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGAN17A TION Of COUNSEL

x

MEMBERS SITTING
x x x x x

ISSUl':S
AOl.13, AOl.43, AOt.53, AOI.57

l ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

HEARING DATE
02-12 18

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0236

3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXJilBlTS SUBMJ'ITED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

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/M
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781504742

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

FD2002-0236	

GENERAL: The appJicant 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 applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for misconduct, namely drug abuse. Member had a urinalysis that came back positive for the presence of cocaine and phencycladine (PCP) above the DoD cut-off level, as referenced in documents submitted to the board by the applicant. Applicant infers  his  discharge  was improper because the urinalysis was in error and he was not offered a re-test. He also now infers he was not involved  in such conduct.   He provides no documentary evidence however to support his contentions, and in the absence of evidence that proper, standard test procedures were deviated from, and  because  the discharge documents are unavailable for review, the Board applied  the  presumption  of  regularity concerning the integrity of the test process and it's results, and the propriety of the discharge itself. Furthermore, applicant was a noncommissioned officer at the time of the alleged misconduct.  Applicant also cites the case of Wood v. Secretary of Defense as a basis for receipt of an honorable discharge; the "Wood" doctrine does not apply in this case due to the apparent presence of illegal drugs in member's system when subjected to a military urinalysis during a period of military duty. Additionally, the record shows, again based on documents submitted by applicant, at the time of the discharge member consulted counsel and waived his right to have his case heard by an administrative discharge board, thus  not attempting to establish his innocence when he had the opportunity. 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. The Board noted that drug abuse is not compatible with Air Force standards;  the seriousness of member' s misconduct and record of other misconduct warrant the characterization of service he received. The Board could find no wrongful  action by the Air Force and concludes the discharge was proper.

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 aU,thority 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