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

TYPE GEN	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME  OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

AIC
x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

YES	No
x

MEMBER SITTING

--------- --- --- --- ----------- --- --- ·'-------

HON	GEN

lJOTI-!C

OTHER

DENY
x x x x x

SSUES

A93.23 A92.0l

I!'IDEX Nl:MBER

A66.00

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE·

BOARD---- ---

A93.09

2	APPLICATI0N 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 APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

11 Aug 2004

FD-2004-00164

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.

(_

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WE  T, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND 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

FD-2004-00164	

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 contends discharge was inequitable because it was based on one incident in 59 months of service.  Applicant was discharged for drug abuse after he received an Article 15 for wrongful use of marijuana when a urinalysis came back containing THC above the DoD cut-off of 15 ng/ml, specifically 37 ng/ml.  Applicant feels a general discharge was too harsh for this offense.  The Board noted 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 and thus the characterization of service member 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.

Issue 2.  Applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation  and other accomplishments.   They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were its basis.

Issue 3.  Applicant contends he was suffering from depression as a result of the death of a best friend, serious illness of his mother, and death of his first child, all within a short period of time.  It was in this context and due to peer pressure that applicant claims he succumbed to the temptation of using marijuana.  At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and they requested  a retention waiver, claiming that member's
drug use was experimental.  But he had admitted three instances of pre-service marijuana use which discredited the claim that he was an experimenter.  Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that member sought help from any base agencies such as the chaplain, life skills clinic, family support center, or chain of command for his purported depression.  While it is understandable that someone experiencing personal problems has additional stress, the Board did not find them of sufficient mitigation to warrant an	
upgrade.

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