AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

-GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AN!l OR ORGANIUTION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION 01' COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x x

A94.0S

HEARING DATE
17 Jan 03

INDEX NUMBER
A67.70

CASE NUMllER
FD2002-0315

1
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER  OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

s
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 NUMBER

FD02-0315	

GENERAL:  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 brief contains the available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The board finds that neither evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety, which would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:  The applicant believes his discharge is inequitable because it was too harsh.  He states that he only had one negative action over his enlistment period.  He was also told that after 6 months, the upgrade was automatic.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for wrongfully using and possessing marijuana.  The Board concluded the drug abuse was a significant departure from the conduct expected of all military members.  The applicant stated he was told his discharge would automatically be upgraded in six months.  The DRB noted the issue was common, the result of miscommunication.   While a discharge may be upgraded after six months, the upgrade is by no means automatic.  A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the DRB can establish an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.  In
this case, none was found, so the Board denied the appeal.	The Board found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

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