AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

•GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATtON

X   RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x

MEMBERS SITTING
x x x
x
L---------------------------------------1	x
ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER

A93.17, AOI.13, AOI.23, A92.37

A66.00	1	ORDER APPOINTING TIIB BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER  OF NOTIFICATION
2	
HEARING  DATE
03-05-07

CASE NUMllER
FD2002-0429

4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXJITBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

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.

_&_l!'	llQ.    !"P!.li;J'[T...._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

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, 3Ro FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-0429	

GENERAL: The applicant 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 nor that provided by applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issues.  Applicant was administratively discharged for misconduct, namely wrongful distribution of about
5.6 grams or less of marijuana, for which she plead and was found guilty at Special Court Martial. At the time of the discharge member consulted counsel and waived her right to submit statements in her own behalf. She also failed to argue that she met the seven retention criteria. Applicant now contends she did nothing wrong because she did not know the civilian she transported onto the base was coming there to sell drugs, although she had some vague idea the civilian did use and sell drugs as well as the military member who asked applicant to bring the civilian on base. Applicant further contends that even if she did something wrong, she has suffered long enough. Review of applicant's signed sworn statement provided to the Air Force Office of Special Investigations during their investigation of this matter disclosed member admitted she knew the civilian was bringing drugs on base for other military members when she (member) gave the civilian the ride to base, and told the civilian afterward that it "was not cool" because she (member) "could get into a lot of trouble for that." The fact that member knew she was transporting the civilian on base to sell drugs to other military members was corroborated in signed sworn statements by two other military members and the civilian. The Board concluded member's misconduct was an extremely significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. She was responsible for her actions of misconduct and must be held accountable for those. Additionally, the Air Force's drug policy was well publicized and members were continually made aware that illegal drug use, possession or distribution were not tolerated. The Board noted that because drug abuse and distribution are not compatible with Air Fo.rce standards, applicant's misconduct therefore warranted the characterization of service she received. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge inthe course of the records review.

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