AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AB
PERSONAL APPEARANCE	x	RECORD REVIEW

YES

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANJZA TION OF COUSSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A92.35 A92.37

INDEX  NUMBER

A66.00

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

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

13 Jan 2004	FD-2003-00482

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...----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----1	1

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78I50-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCI: PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD lSJSCOMMAND DR, EE 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

FD2003-00482	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to general, under honorable conditions.

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 the applicant substantiates an impropriety or inequity that would justify an upgrade of the discharge.

Issues.  Applicant was discharged for drug abuse.  Member, who was a Security Forces specialist, received two Articles 15, a vacation of suspended punishment, three Letters of Reprimand, and three Letters of Counseling.  His misconduct included failure to obey lawful orders, failure to go to his appointed place of duty, sleeping on his post, and marijuana use.  The Board noted that member was recommended for an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge and after consulting his military defense counsel, submitted an unconditional waiver to his right to an administrative board hearing or to submit statements in his own behalf.  Applicant now infers discharge was too harsh based on an isolated incident of drug abuse.  The Board noted however that applicant had admitted pre-service marijuana use on his Personnel Security Questionnaire and on his AF Form 2030, Drug Abuse Certificate.  Furthermore, member did not request he be considered for retention at the time of the discharge, and had he, it would have been
his burden of proof to show he met the seven retention criteria. The Board recognized applicant was 24 years of age when the discharge took place, however, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong. The Board opined the applicant was older than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct. At the time of his discharge, the Air Force's drug policy was well publicized and members were continually made aware that illegal drug use was not tolerated. Marijuana use is viewed as a very serious failure to meet Air Force standards. The Board noted that because drug abuse is not compatible with Air Force standards, nor those of the Security Forces career field, the characterization of service he received is warranted and appropriate due to that misconduct.
The Board could find no inequity or impropriety on which to suggest a basis 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