AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE ME}IBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSA N
AB	an 1111 11 1r,

TYPE GEN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

x	RECORD  REVIEW

c_'':('c;Jl;'J!-N:.:Es('::·L·'.
\'ES	No
x

-'l NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANJZA TlON OF COt:NSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY

---.......................................·<--------------1------+----1-----+-----+	I
x
x x x
x
L••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••'

ISSUES

A66.00

INDEX NUMBER

A94.05

I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPUCA TION 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:"'tlUMBER

24 Feb 2004	FD-2003-00554

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;

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH  AFB. TX 781 50-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIE\\' BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, lRD 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 NU!l.1BER

FD-2003-00554	

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 wrongfully using marijuana.  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