AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)		
PERSONAL APPEARANCE	x	RECORD REVIEW	
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS  AND OR ORGASIZA TION OF COt:JliSEL	

-GRADE	AFSN/SSAN 	

MEMBER SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	
						x	
						x	
						x	
						x	
						x	
S.SUES	A92. 15 A94.39	INDEX  Nt:MBER
A62.00	
		I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	
		2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
		3	LETTER OF NOT!FlCATION	
		4	BRJEF OF PERSONNEL  FILE	
			COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
			TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
HEARING DAIT

14 Dec 2004	
CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-00033			

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.

-------	.J{),0L,.,1_1	{	•	

SAF/MRB	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSON"'lEL COUSCIL
550 C STR    T   ' ST, SUITE 40	AlR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1S35 COMl'\.1AND DR, EE \\'ING,3RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH    FB. TX 78150-4742	AJ\"DREWS AFB, MD 20761-7002	

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NlJMBER

FD-2003-00033	

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.

Issue 1. Applicant was discharged for fraudulent entry into military service. While attending Commissioned Officer Training, after receiving integrity training, member told his instructor that in addition to pre-service marijuana experimentation, he had also tried hallucinogenic mushrooms and nitrous oxide. This admission was contrary to official written statements on his commissioning documents, certified on two separate occasions, in which he had only revealed using marijuana five to ten times while in high school. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and submitted a statement in his own behalf in which he requested retention, or in the alternative, an honorable discharge. Applicant now contends that many active duty officers have used illegal drugs prior to service but concealed it upon entry. He also asserts that there are officers on active duty who have admitted to using hallucinogenic drugs but allowed to remain in service. Applicant provided no documented evidence to support these contentions and the Board was not aware of any such evidence. The Board could find no evidence of record to substantiate applicant's contentions and found them without merit.

Issue 2. Applicant notes his discharge resulted from his own willing revelation of wrongdoing, which he asserts was an exercise of integrity. While the Board appreciates the applicant's ultimate forthrightness, it does not overcome the basis for his discharge which was his prior omissions on two separate occasions, under clear threat of potential punitive actions and I or adverse discharge, in the face of such omissions. The Board opined that had applicant made these omissions prior to his entry to service, it is unlikely he would have been given a waiver for these particular drug offenses and would not have been allowed to enter the service. The Board noted that the types of drug offenses applicant admitted and fraudulent entry to military service constitute senous misconduct that 1s not compatible with Air Force standards. Additionally, were it not for the falsification of his entry documents, it is doubtful applicant would have been allowed into the Air Force based on his repetitive and serious pre-service drug abuse. The Board must find an inequity or impropriety on which to base an upgrade; the records review disclosed none in this case.

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