AIR FORCE DISCHARGE R]':VIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

YES	No
x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

AB
x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING
.----------------------------------

--------------------------------- ·

HON

GEN

UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

'A92.15 A92.21 AOl.39 AOl.45

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 APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

I 08 Sep 2004

FD-2004-00197

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 WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB. TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD 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

FD2004-00197	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change his reenlistment code.

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, change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment  code are 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.

Issue 1. Applicant was discharged for drug abuse and contends he was punished too severely.  During the enlistment under review, member received an Arti cle 15 for marijuana use after his specimen from a consensual urinalysis tested positive for THC at 165 ng/ml, well above the DoD cut-off of 15 ng/ml.  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, 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.

Issue 2.  Applicant claimed he was innocent of the charges.  Applicant offered no actual evidence at the time of the discharge, or now, to disprove the presence of the illegal metabolite in his system, or to impugn the integrity of the drug testing process.  Results of subsequent negative drug tests are insufficient to lend credibility to this contention.  Therefore, the Board finds it without merit.  Furthermore, the Board was not persuaded by applicant 's inference that he failed to fully use the options available to him to prove his innocence at the time of the Article 15 and subsequent discharge.

Issue 3.  Applicant contended his counseling regarding the negative impact of the discharge and about his transition to civilian life was inadequate.  The Board noted that Capt B, an Area Defense Counsel, assisted applicant for both his Article 15 proceeding and his administrative discharge processing.  Applicant signed statements acknowledging military legal counsel was made available to him and that he consulted counsel. At the time of the discharge processing applicant acknowledged he understood the specific basis for the discharge, had been counseled regarding his rights and options, and waived his right to submit further statements in his own behalf.  There is no evidence the applicant's rights were violated in any way.  In view of the records, the Board concluded this contention was also without merit, and that member was	
adequately represented throughout the administrative proceedings.  The fact that the results of legal counsel
or actions taken were not as he desired or expected does not constitute inadequacy.

Issue 4.  Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely due to the adverse nature of his discharge.  This contention is unfounded.  The discharge regulations clearly gave his chain of command authority to recommend  administratively discharging him based on unsuitability for further military service as a result of his serious misconduct.  Facts and circumstances are different in each action and must be judged on a case-by-case basis.  In doing so, a commander must consider the seriousness of the misconduct and how a member's retention might affect good order, discipline, and morale, not just the member's past record of service or rehabilitative potential.  They must focus on conduct during the current enlistment, and	

I