AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (l.AST, FmST MIDDLE INITIAL)

-GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

ll()N	Gl!:N

VQTE OF THE BOARD

UOTHC

OTHl!:R

DENY
x x x x x

ISSUES

INDEX NUMBER

EXHIBITS SUllMfJTED TO THE BOARD

1\.94.05

A66.00	I	ORDER APPOINTfNG THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

llEARING DATE
10 APR 03

CASE NUMllER
FD2002-0440

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
Ni\L RATIONAL ARE DISCtrSSED ON;rli.ll ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD pl;'.CISIONAL RATl<)NALE.

REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to aJerson·  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 WINO, 3Rll 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

FD02-0440	

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 avai1able 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: Applicant contends that his discharge was improper because it was based on a past incident that was proved to be a wrong place wrong time situation. The record indicates the applicant received an Article 15 for wrongfully using marijuana. 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. The Board found no evidence of any inequity  or impropriety on which to base a decision to upgrade the discharge.

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