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

ea rrnr rs

AB	IllllH!bt .

TYPE GEN	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW
eJfi NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x
x
x

ISSUES

A92.35 A92.21 A94.05

INDEX NUMJIER

A66.00

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRJEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'$ RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMJIER

01 Dec 2004	FD-2004-00266

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.

-'        -----------------	--------).·----4-------.0- J------ ---------------- ·----------------------'·

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

SECRETARY 01' TIJE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVI.EW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR. EE WING. JRD HOOR ANDREWS AFll, 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-2004-00266	
GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

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.

Issue 1. Applicant was discharged for drug abuse; he had received an Article 15 for wrongful use of marijuana.  Applicant feels a general discharge was too harsh for this offense and claims he only used the substance one time while on leave.  He notes it was "a terrible mistake," and that he cooperated with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations during their investigation.  The records disclosed that at the time of the discharge, member waived his right to consult counsel, waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf, and failed to argue that he met the seven criteria for retention.  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 contends that his discharge constituted punishing him twice for the same incident.  It should be noted that administrative separation is an action that severs the military status of an individual and characterizes his service, but is not the same as punishment rendered by a judicial or non-judicial punishment proceeding.  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.  The regulation provides for circumstances wherein a single incident of misconduct may provide the basis for characterizing service.  Commission of a serious offense clearly established applicant's unsuitability for further Air Force service.  All required procedures were properly followed in the applicant's case.

Issue 3 applies to the applicant's post-service activities.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job.  However, this does not provide a basis of inequity or impropriety on which to justify an upgrade, nor was one found in the course of the records review.  The Board concluded the	
applicant's misconduct appropriately characterized his term of service.

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