,
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
,,.,., R	Ill	Fl I
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
	
x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x

MEMBER SITTING
-------------------------------------

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,	_
ISSUES	A94,05	INDEX NVMBER	A66,00

HON

GEN

UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

l	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 ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

13Jan 2004	FD-2003-00436

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

.-----------------------------------·-------------------------------------------------------------------------;.-----------!
.    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	·...........·''

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78151J-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COV NCJL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIE:w BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, lRD FWOR 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-2003-00436	

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 available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of Discharge is denied.

ISSUE: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for willfully failing to refrain from consuming alcoholic beverages while under the age of 21. However, the reason for the discharge was the applicant's admission to a MSgt that she used cocaine. Applicant states that she was never found guilty of drug abuse and her urinalysis was negative. She also states that the evidence found in her apartment was not hers since she did not live there any longer. The applicant further states that no action was taken against her because evidence could not be linked to her and that an involuntary administrative discharge is not a substitute for disciplinary action and therefore, this involuntary discharge directly violates AFI 36-3208 and her due process rights were completely discarded. There is no law or regulation requiring a commander to take disciplinary action following an investigation that proves drug use. In this case, court-martial or nonjudicial punishment action was not taken because of alleged evidentiary problems. However, the evidence can be used in administrative actions. Applicant asserts that due to the fact that no disciplinary action was taken, the only reasonable conclusion to reach is that the evidence did not support her drug use. To the contrary, the evidence does support her drug use. She made a statement to MSgt F that she did use cocaine. Furthermore, cocaine residue was found in her residence. The evidence is clear by her own admission that she abused cocaine. In regards to the discharge action being used as a substitute for disciplinary action; this issue is unfounded. AFI 36-3208 requires discharge processing in drug abuse cases. This discharge action would have taken place regardless of any disciplinary action taken against the applicant. 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  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