AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

' NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FffiST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

x	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TSGT

L I	Rt
RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTIIC

OTIIER	DENY
x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.30

x x x
x

l	ORDER APPOJNTING 1HE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO Tiffi BOARD

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDJNG OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

07 Dec 2003	FD-2003-00374

Case heard at Randolph AFB, Texas.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

TO:

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

FROM:

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

FD-2003-00374	

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

The applicantthe Discharge Review Board at Randolph AFB, Texas, on 7 December 2003. He was represented b f the Texas Veterans Commission.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

•	The applicant submitted the following additional documentary evidence:
Exhibit #5, Statement from Applicant with 23 attachments, dated 7 December 2003.

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.

ISSUES:

Issue 1. Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant's urine tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol  (THC), the metabolite found in marijuana.  He was offered  an administrative discharge board, but waived his right not only to legal counsel, but also to present matters to the administrative discharge board.  The applicant contends that his waiver of his right to counsel and an administrative discharge board was a result of the custody battle in which he was involved at the time of his discharge after more than 18 years of satisfactory service.  He also states that he has never used marijuana and contends that his positive
urinalysis was the result of either his innocent ingestion of marijuana smoke emitting from the marijuana his girlfriend at the time smoked or from his legal ingestion of pep pills or Ma Hwang, an herbal tea.

The applicant contends that the Ma Hwang which he ingested came from a container purchased at a local health and nutrition store by a friend of his.  The applicant stated he gave personnel at AFRC!DPML a copy of the label from the container of the Ma Hwang on which there was a statement indicating that ingesting Ma Hwang could result in a positive urine test for THC.  That copy, however, is not in the case file.  To the contrary, the case file contains documentation which provides background on Ma Hwang.  Although that summary states the Ma Hwang contains ephedrine-which  can be converted to methamphetamine- it makes no reference to potential  positive  test results for THC.

Issue 2 applies to the applicant's post-service activities.  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 applicant's term of service was appropriately characterized.

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.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board conc1udes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and subtantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the apphcant 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