UOTHC

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	-X    RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

'

11·1n1rn ·1111 11111
TYPE

AFSN/SSAN

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

MEMBERS SITTING

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x x x x x

ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER
A93.07, A94.53	A74.00

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEITER OF NOTIFICATION

HEARING DATE
22 JUL 03

REMARKS

CASE NUMBER
FD2003-00019

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

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and 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

FD2003-00019	

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 received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge pursuant to her request to be discharged in lieu of trial by court martial, apparently for a drug related offense.  Additionally, member had an Article 15 in the same enlistment for absenting herself from her unit for 5 days.  At the time of the discharge, member submitted matters indicating her spouse has been prosecuted and convicted of marijuana possession, and she had been drawn into his criminal activity because of her love for him.
Another letter indicates member was "inadvertently involved" in an incident, apparently related to her spouse's illegal activities.  Nevertheless, the Board concluded member's apparent misconduct was incompatible with Air Force standards and an extremely significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  Member would have been well aware of the Air Force's zero tolerance policy for drug abuse.  For the period of service under review, her misconduct was sufficient reason for receiving a UOTHC discharge.  The Board further notes that applicant voluntarily submitted her request for discharge in lieu of trial by court martial, thus not attempting to establish her innocence or present her extenuating or mitigating factors.  In doing so she acknowledged that under these circumstances her characterization of service could be deemed under other than honorable conditions in accordance with discharge regulations, wherein airmen so discharged usually do have their service characterized as UOTHC.  Furthermore, since the discharge documents are not available for review, and lacking any evidence from the applicant to the contrary, the Board must rely on the presumption of regularity and found no wrongful action by the Air Force, and finds the discharge proper and without basis for upgrade.

Ifshe can provide additional documented information to substantiate an issue, the applicant should consider exercising her right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  If she should choose to exercise her right to a personal appearance hearing, the applicant should be prepared to provide the DRB with factual evidence of the inequity and any exemplary post-service accomplishments and contributions to the community.

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