AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAJ,)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AB	•1111111	IP
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

'     ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZ."'flON OF COUNSEL

x

MEMBERS SITTING

IlON	GEN

VOTE OF THE BOARD

UOTH(;	OTHER
x x x x
, X

INOEX NUMBER

EXl;l)BITS SUBMITTED TO THE !IOAJID

A66.00	I ORDER APPOINTrNG THE BOARD
,  2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

HEARING DATE
30 JUL 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2003-0242

'  4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO TIIE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
'Al'I!UCANT'S ISSUE f\ND TI!E BO.J?CISIONAL RA:tl:Qt\l;. ARE DISC!ii	'()Jf TI!E AITACfjED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REvmw BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.

REMARKS
Case hea rd at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appea rance 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 WfNG, 3R1> 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 RATlONALE	CASE NUMIJER

FD03-0242	

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

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.

ISSUE: Applicant does not contest his discharge. He states that it was based on one isolated incident after completing his full term of service with no adverse action. The record indicates the applicant received an Article 15 for wrongfully using marijuana. The applicant states that this incident occurred after he completed his full term of service. This issue is without merit as the offense occurred in December of 2001. The Article 15 was issued on February 8, 2002, after the urinalysis report came back positive for marijuana. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be  appropriate. 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