AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AB

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

MEMBERS SIITING

X  RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x x x x x

HEAIUNG DATE
1AUG 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2003-00131

:  1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO nm BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

s
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.

SAFIMIBR
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 FOIW 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2003-00131	

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 t1iat neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety, which would justify a change of discharge.

Issues: The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. Applicant was discharged for misconduct - drug abuse. He was given an Article 15 for wrongfully using marijuana. The member totally denies using marijuana; however, his tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) level was well above the DoD cutoff level. At the time of discharge, member consulted counsel and submitted statements in his own behalf. Member was age 25 when his misconduct happened--older than other airmen who honorably complete their service without misconduct. There was no evidence member did not know right from wrong. The Board determined member was responsible for his actions and held accountable for them and his misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The Board did not find sufficient mitigation to warrant an upgrade, and no inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the 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