--...

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME  OF SERVICE MEMBER  (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

SSgt

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

I	RECORD    REVIEW

CQlJNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL YES	No
x
VOTE OF TQ.E BOARD
.	MEMBER    SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

..

...------------------------------------------    ...	x

.

..

...

.

...

.

...
..

...	x

..

...	x

..

...	x
...	x
----------------------------------------- ·

ISSUES	A92.21	INDEX NUMBER	A94.07	, EXHIBITSSUl\f n:1:tylt9 Utlpl{)iD
I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

.

'	..
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 APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

18 Oct 2004	FD-2002-0423
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL t\RE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED    R FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE:
..
;,7

Case heard at Washington, D.C. via video teleconference from Travis AFB, CA.

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

.,

a::=)

....,	')
·""·	..·	L	CJ

..	...

...

..

DATE:  10118120,q;t	'   : .

----------------------.:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INl)OEr
TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL COUNCIL

L550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR

RANDOLPH  AFB, TX 78I 50-4742	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

FD-2002-0423	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to  change  the  reason  and authority for the discharge and to change the reenlistment code.

The applicant appeared before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) at Andrews AFB, Maryland, via video teleconference (VTC) from Travis AFB, California. Although she acknowledged her right to be represented by counsel, the a . t wa. iv. ed her right to counsel.  The applicant presented personal testimony and called one witness, Major, USAFR.   Both testified under oath.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge, change  of reason and authority for  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:

1. Applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because she made a mistake more than 17 years ago and the discharge is keeping her from joining the Air Force Reserve. The records indicated the applicant, a noncommissioned officer, was facing a special court-martial  stemming from her wrongful use of marijuana. Prior to trial, the applicant submitted a request for discharge in lieu of court-martial pursuant to Chapter 4 of Air Force Regulation 39-10. In her "Chapter 4" request, she acknowledges that if her request was approved, she could be separated under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). She further stated that she was aware of the adverse nature of such a service characterization.  She  made  her  request  after  consulting military defense counsel. During her VTC, the applicant admitted to wrongfully using marijuana while she was in Frankfurt, Germany, in June or July of 1987. After returning to her duty section, she was ordered to submit a urine sample as part of a random urinalysis inspection. Her sample tested positive for THC, the metabolite in marijuana, at 50 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml). The DOD cutoff for marijuana is 15 ng/ml. The applicant further admitted to both pre-service and post-service marijuana use, but testified that she has not used illegal drugs for more than 15 years. The Board concluded the misconduct  was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.   The characterization  of the discharge received by
the applicant was found to be appropriate.	

Issue 2 applies to the applicant's post-service activities. The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job. However, no inequity or impropriety in her discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing. The Board concluded the UOTHC discharge appropriately characterized her term of service.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, 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