AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AlC

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

MEMBERS SITTING

X   RECQW> REVIEW
AnDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x x x
x
x

Jff:ARING DAn;
8 AUG 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2003-0240

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDmONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

MARKS
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.

SAF/MIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANOOLPH AFB, TX 781504742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3ru> 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

FD03-0240	

GENERAL:   The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, change the Reason and Authority for discharge and to change the RE Code.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined to exercise this right.

The attached brief contains the available 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.

ISSUES: Applicant does not contest his discharge. He merely states that he was never instructed that he had failed a urinalysis test and that if he worked undercover for the OSI, he would be kept in the Air Force. These issues are without merit. The applicant never did have a urinalysis test, nor was one requested, so he is correct in stating that he was never instructed about such a test. The Commander looked closely at the specific circumstances of the offense and of the applicant's cooperation with the OSI and with the local Sheriff's office; however, when the Commander decided to discharge the applicant, he informed the applicant that he was going to be discharged with a General Discharge. The applicant, on 16 Feb 00, signed the memorandum acknowledging that he has been notified about the  discharge for drug abuse and understood the characterization for discharge was going to be General. The record indicates the applicant received a General Discharge for Misconduct, specifically, Drug Abuse. The applicant admitted to the OSI that he smoked 2 or 3 times. The Board found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance. 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