AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

-NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (J..AST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AB	'·21srn• 11

TYPE GEN

YES	No
x

PERSONAL APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRE.SS AND Ok ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING
:·---------------------------------------------- .

'

'	'
'

''
'' ------------------------------------------------ ''

HON	OEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x x x
x
x

ISSUES

AOl.13 A94.39 AOl.43 AOl.25 A92.39

INDEX NUMBER

A66.00

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFJCA TION
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

03 Feb 2004	FD-2003-00441

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.

1

,...- - -- -- -- - -- -- -- - ----------- _ }_ - - -- -- --- -- ...... _ /}_ --·--'- - -- -- -- - -- -- - -- -- -- - -- -- -- - -- -- - -- -- -- - -- -- -- - -- -- - -,

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,    E WING, JRD 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-2003-00441	

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.

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.

Issue 1. Applicant was discharged for drug abuse, namely methylenedioxymethamphetamine, "ecstasy."
She contends she was unjustly accused and there was no solid supporting evidence about her alleged offense. The records indicated the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for this misconduct, which was the sole basis for her discharge. The records revealed that applicant attended a party at which ecstasy was used.
Eight other people at the party received positive urinalyses for the use of ecstasy, and six of those confessed to the use of ecstasy. At least six of those personnel were court-martialed for their offenses. At the time of the party, when the Security Forces arrived, they told applicant to wait in particular room for questioning; witnesses among the party-goers later disclosed applicant had also been at the party, but departed the scene contrary to the Security Forces instructions, and thus avoided questioning and a urinalysis.  Her involvement was not disclosed until the subsequent court-martials of the other party-goers.  There were at least two witness statements against member, the strongest of which came from another airman at the party who had not partook of the ecstasy but had witnessed the party-goers behavior, including that of applicant. They  were inhaling vapor rub, hugging and rubbing each other, and wearing masks with vapor rub on them. The next day, applicant asked for and was given two pacifiers to chew on due to jaw pain, and she stated "Thursday night felt good" and she wanted to "do it again that night." This behavior is consistent with the use of ecstasy, and satisfies the threshold of a preponderance of the evidence that applicant used ecstasy.
The Board thus found no merit in applicant's issues. At the time of the discharge, the Air Force's drug policy was well publicized and members were continually made aware that illegal drug use was not
tolerated. Ecstasy use is viewed as a very serious failure to meet Air Force standards. Because drug abuse is not compatible with Air Force standards, the characterization of service applicant received is warranted.

The Board further noted that applicant's records disclosed several other incidents of misconduct documented by four Records of Individual Counseling, a Letter of Counseling, and another Letter of Reprimand. These infractions included two instances of failure to go, failing to perform assigned  duties, sending sexually explicit e-mail to another airman over a government computer, and lying to a noncommissioned officer. While these offenses were not used as a basis for discharge, they were properly considered on the question of whether or not applicant should be discharged, and the characterization of her service. Additionally, the last of her two Enlisted Performance Reports was rated an overall referral "2" and disclosed applicant had failed to maintain weight standards, had dress and appearance problems, and lacked integrity, motivation, and a sense of personal responsibility for her actions. The DRB opined that through the unit's administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her repetitive negative behavior. The Board further concluded these disciplinary infractions were a significant departure from the conduct expected of all military members.	

Issue 2. The applicant cited her desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade.  The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, she signed a statement (DD Form 2366) on July 12, 2001, that she understood she must receive an Honorable discharge to receive future educational  entitlements. The Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits was having on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety that warrants an upgrade.

Ifshe can provide additional documented information to substantiate an issue, the applicant should consider exercising her right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  If she should choose to exercise this right to a personal appearance hearing, the applicant should be prepared to provide the DRB with factual evidence of the inequity and any exemplary post-service accomplishments as well as any contributions to the community.

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