ITIAL)	GRADE

TYPE GEN	PERSONAL  APPEAKANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

AIC
x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

YES	No
x

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A66.00

I	ORDER APPOINTfNG 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  !ME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

16 Feb 2005	FD-2004-00228

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 .

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request

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

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIE\V BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00228	

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: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and that he was maliciously and falsely accused of smoking marijuana. The records indicated the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand 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. In the applicant's response to the Letter of Reprimand, he denied the allegation and maintained he was not given enough information about the allegation to properly respond to it. Based on this, the base legal office contacted applicant's defense counsel and offered to have the allegation evaluated through a special court-martial. The applicant, through his defense counsel, declined
this offer. In addition, the applicant stated that he never used marijuana prior to entering the service, when in fact, he was arrested and charged with two I'' degree misdemeanors: marijuana possession and narcotics equipment possession and/or use.

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