·-	··- ··
:
!	AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SE:RVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	- AFSN/SSAN
•,
1•1111111• 1 1111.11111•	AlC	11111i1 • 11 r1n
TYPE  UOTH	I	PERSONAL APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME Of COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	I-ION	GEN	UOTl-IC	OTHER	DENY
------------
x

x
x
I
''	x
''

'''	x
''	--

'. ;.•:·

ISSUES

A67.10

INDEX NUIVlllER

A95.00

EXHlBITS SUBMIITED,TO THE BOARD
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 NUM!11J:R

05 Oct 2004	FD-2004-00280
·	APPllGA.NT'S ISSUE AND 1J{E BOA!U)'S DE(;IS)ONAL RATIONAL AllE DIS.CUSSW ON THE ATTACHED .AlR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DEC!Sl(JNAL RATIONALE

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

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

i	''

'

!	'''

s120li4

-----------------------------------------..--II-i-lD--O-R-   SEMENT	,   DATE "iiii'

.  h.,  . '...

--·
TOo	FROM'

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY  OF THE AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW  llOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	I5J5 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS ,\FJ:I, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition wi ll be used

·-   ···--·-·-·-·-··-

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00280	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to general.

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 the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any that would justify a change of discharge. 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: The applicant submitted no issues and requested that the review be completed based  on the available service record. The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge. The records indicated applicant received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge for misconduct, specifically for the possession with intent to distribute an illegal substance (marijuana). The majority  of the discharge documents are missing from this case file. A concerted search was made at Barksdale AFB, where the applicant was discharged, at AF/JA, and with the member. The only documents available are the AF Form 286A, Notification of Personnel Reliability Program Permanent Decertification Action which gives the reason for PRP decertification as: "for possessing with intent to distribute an illegal substance (marijuana)", an AF Fom12098, Duty Status Change which states the applicant was incarcerated in the Bossier Parish jail and charged with possession of a controlled substance with bail set at $20,000, and a DD Form 214 which shows a characterization of service as  UOTHC for misconduct Lacking any documentation to support  any allegation of impropriety or inequity, the board must rely on the presumption of regularity which means that when the government, or in this case the military, takes an action, it is deemed to be a good and proper action. The burden of proof lies with the applicant to convince the members of the Board that their discharge should be something other than what it is, and in doing so, overcome the  presumption  of regularity.

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