-

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVlEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
' NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST.FIRST MIDDLE INffiAL)	GRADE
A Illlfl1 ·

AFSNISSAN

nl'E GEN	X

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

Yl.S

NAME or COUNllLAND OR ORGANIZATION
No
x

ISSUES	A9l.37 AOl.39

MEMBER SITTING

A66.00

x x x
x x

ORDER APPOINTING IBE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETIER OF NOTlFlCATlON

4	BRlEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITI NAL	UBlTIEDAT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

W:ARING DATE	CASE NUMBDl

14 Apr l004

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

SAF/MRBR
SSO C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OJ' T1B AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNOL AIR FORCE DISCIL\RCE JU:VU:W BOARD
lSJ!I COMMAH8 DR, EE WING,31tDJ1'LOOR ANDIU;WS AJ'll, MD 20762·7tol

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUl\.IBER

FD-2002-0306	
GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change his reenlistment
code.

The applicant was scheduled for a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) at Fort Gillem, Georgia, in April 2004, but failed to respond to formal notification of the hearing date and did not request a postponement.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge and change of reenlistment code are denied.
The  Board  finds that  neither  the  evidence  of record  nor  that provided  by the  applicant  substantiates  an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUES:
Issues 1, 2 and 3.  The records indicated the applicant had two positive drug tests for marijuana over an 11- day period while in an in-patient treatment program for alcohol dependence.  Although member requested he be allowed to continue his alcohol treatment after the positive drug tests, he refused to take anti-relapse medications, and subsequently failed to return to the program after an authorized absence.  Member also had a Letter of Reprimand for an underage drinking incident that involved assault and possession of another person's driver's license.  Applicant now infers his illegal marijuana use was a lapse of judgment  due to depression after the death of a friend, and asserts it occurred while he was on leave.  While it is understandable that someone experiencing personal problems may have increased stress, there is no evidence applicant used available base agencies such as the Chaplain, Family Support Center or chain of command to help him cope with his stress.  The Board found the alleged personal problems of insufficient mitigation to suggest an upgrade.  At the time of the discharge, applicant consulted counsel but waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.  Additionally, the Air Force's drug policy was well publicized and members were continually made aware that illegal drug use was not tolerated.  Furthermore, member did not request
he be considered for retention at the time of the discharge, and had he, it would have been his burden of
proof to show he met the seven retention criteria. Applicant now contends his counsel didn't properly advise him of the seven retention criteria nor the possibility of retention. The Board could not find anything in the records to substantiate these issues and finds them without merit. Marijuana use is viewed as a very serious failure to meet Air Force standards; because drug abuse is not compatible with Air Force standards, the characterization of service applicant received is warranted.
Applicant also contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for mistakes he made when younger and immature, and that he should be allowed to reenter military service.  The DRB recognized th(! applicant was 20 years of age when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  The Board opined the applicant was as old as the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct.  And while the Board commends	
applicant on his desire to return to military service, this is not a basis in inequity or impropriety on which to base an upgrade. Thus, the DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the 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.

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