AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
I181S•ICR'*
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
"' 11llllllJIL
RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A92.21

INDEX NUMBER

A74.00

A92.37	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

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF

19 Nov 2003

FD-2003-00352

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

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

..- - - - -,_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - _ )_ - - - .r.-.. - - - - -    [)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ./.l/.l-- - - - _._ - - - - - - - .

.

s:..	!
:c

SAF/MRBR
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, 3RD 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

FD2003-00352	

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.

Issues. Applicant received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge pursuant to his request to be discharged in lieu of trial by court martial. Member was charged with using marijuana on divers occasions between 31 December 1998 and 6 February 2000, and with making a false official statement to his commander concerning his use of drugs. The record indicated member had previously been recommended for an administrative discharge for fraudulent enlistment. In that earlier administrative discharge action, the wing commander elected to waive discharge, thus effectively terminating the action and retaining member. This occurred in August 1999. Subsequently in February 2000, member's random urinalysis came back positive for the presence of marijuana. That prompted the Air Force Office of Special Investigations to interview member, during which member admitted under rights advisement the details about both his pre-service drug abuse and frequent in-service marijuana use. Applicant now comes admitting he made a "big mistake" and requesting an upgrade based on his post-service conduct. While the Board commends applicant on his post-service accomplishments, the Board concluded member's misconduct was a particularly serious failure to meet Air Force standards and an extremely significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The Air Force's drug policy was well publicized and members were continually made aware that illegal drug use was not tolerated. For the period of service under review, his misconduct was sufficient reason for receiving a UOTHC discharge. The Board further notes that applicant voluntarily submitted his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court martial, thus not attempting to establish his innocence or present any extenuating or mitigating factors. In doing so he acknowledged that under these circumstances his characterization of service could be deemed under other than honorable conditions in accordance with discharge regulations, wherein airmen so discharged usually do have their service characterized as UOTHC. The Board found no wrongful action by the Air Force, and could find no inequity or impropriety on which to base an upgrade to 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