Am FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

•	! NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER {LAST, FIRST MIJ>DLE INITIAL)	GRADE SRA	AFSN/SSAN

11111•	1rnr••••

x

MEMBER SITTING

·_"	- rr,_\,
HON

't v'lf nr11JlRD ·:	:.
GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY

i	x
x x x

ISSUES

A94.05

INOl!X NUMBER	A70.00

llEARlNG DATE

CASE NUMBER

2	APPLICATION f OR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
•	3		LETTER OF NOTIFICATION BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF

23 Sep 2003	FD-2003-00151

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise appl icant 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

TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECJUi:'tARY OF THE AIR •'ORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGF; REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, lRll 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 NUMBF:R

FD-2003-0015 1	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but decl ined 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 the applicant  substantiates  an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. He elected to be discharged  in lieu of a Court Martial. The record indicates the applicant admitted to the use of cocaine and marijuana. The Board concluded the  misconduct was a significant departure from cond uct expected of all military members. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate. Applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation and other accomplishments. They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance. The Board concluded the discharge  was appropriate for the reasons that were the basis for this case. The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job. However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing. The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

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