A	AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARI NG RECORD	-
- --- -- - -"lTIAL)
'	-
TYPE  GEN	x	I	PERSONAL     Al'l'EAKANCE	I	RECORD   REVIEW
COUNSEi,	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL YES	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARl>,	·. -
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x x
--	x
ISSUES	A94.06	INDEX N\IMBER	A94.39	EX.-UlUTS S°ijBMITTED TO THE JJ,Q R
AOI.47	I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
A94.43	2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW  OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER  OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITJONAL EXH JBTTS SUBMJTTED AT TIM E OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

17 May 2005	FD-2004-00456
APPUCANT'S ISSUE AND TIIE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AJR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

Case heard at Wash ington, D.C. via video-teleconferencing with St. Augustine, Florida.

Advise appl icant of the decision  of the Board  and the right to submit an appl ication to the AFBCMR. Names and votes wil l  be made ava i la ble to the appl icant at the appl icant's req uest.

I	I
INDORSEMENT	DATE: 5/25/2005	 	
-	-------  ------ ---	----- --- -·- ----·	- -- .-- -	-- -- --	-----
ro,	FRO J ,
SAF/MRBR	SlCRETARY OF THE AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL CO\T NCJL
AIR FORCE DISCllARGE RE\'IE\\ BOARD

550 C STREET WEST SU ITE 40

l J;; COMMA NU DR. H\\ I NG. JRU t'LOOR

RANDOLPH AFB_ TX 781 50-4 742	ANDREWS AFB. MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM  0-2077, J AN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00456	

teleconferencing  at  St. Augustine,  Florida,  on  17  May  2005.	The applicant  was  represented  by  Mr. -- GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of d ischarge to honorable and to change the reenl istment code.
The   applicant   appeared   and   testified   before   the   Discharge   Review   Board   (DRB),   with   counsel,  via   video
l•Pz Ii of the Florid a Disabled American Veterans.	'
The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit # 5: A ppl icant's Personal Written Statement

The attached brief conta ins avai lable perti nent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge and change of reenl istment code are den ied.
The Board  finds that neither the evidence of record  nor that  provided  by the appl icant substantiates  an inequ ity or impropriety that wou ld justify a change of discharge.

ISSUES: The appl icant received a letter of  reprimand,  d ated  26  September  1989,  for  illegally  transporti ng  and importi ng ("smuggl ing'') anabolic steroids into the United States, resu lting in his discharge wit h  a  general,  under Honorabl e cond itions, characterization  on  7 Novem ber  1989 for miscond uct  - drug  abuse. The applicant  contends his d ischarge was  inequ itable  because,  whi le he  was  made  aware that  use of narcotics  and  u nderage  alcohol  usage  were  i llegal, he was not informed that anabol ic steroids were i llega l to use, obtain, or be in possession of, during his delayed and active periods of enlistment. Add itional ly, the appl icant contends that  there  were  no  "comprehensive  programs" offered to him in order to help with drug rehabil itation and education.  Final ly, the applicant contends that the actions taken aga inst him were "swift and decisive" and that he d id not receive alternative actions, such as a reduction in ran k, or "other forms of punishment." Based upon evidence of record  and  the  applicant's  testimony,  the  Board  was  of the belief the applicant was sufficientl y aware of the i l legal nature of his actions, as noted by  his  initial  den ial  of possession of the substance at a US-Mexican  border  inspect i on poi nt, and  it's conceal ment u pon his person  and within his personal items. Additiona lly, the  appl icant  testified  that  he  had  previously  made  a  trip  to  Mexico  to  procure anabol ic steroids without apprehension. The Board acknow ledges that d uring the  period  of the  appl icant's  mil itary service, there may have been a greater emphasis on briefi ngs on narcotics and underage alcohol usage.  However,  the Board opined this factor does not mit igate the appl icant's initial and continued use of the drug, even after bei ng made fully aware of its i llegal  natu re.   Fina l ly, the applicant's med ical records reflect h is attend ance at physica l  assessments of h is body habitus on  1 4 December  1988 and 28 A ugust  1989, in addition to a mental  health  assessments on or about 9 May 1989 and 2 August 1989, times i n wh ich the Board  opined  the appl icant had  an ample opportunity  to ad dress any steroid add iction or rehabi l itative  matters.  The  Board  l auds  the  member's  post-service  accom pl ishments,  but found these do not mitigate the serious offense of i llegal  drug  purchase,  its  concea l ment,  continued  usage,  and transport  across an  international  border.

CONCLUSIONS:   The Discharge  Review  Board  concl udes that the d ischarge was consistent  with  the proced u ral  and substantive requ irements of the d ischarge regu lat i on and was wit hi n the d iscretion of the d ischarge authority and that the applicant was provided  fu l l  administrative  due process.
J n view of the foregoi ng find ings the Boa rd  further concludes that there exists no l egal or equ itable basis for u pgrade of d ischarge, thus the appl icant's d ischarge shou ld not be changed.

Attachment: Exami ner's Brief	

Ir