AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

ITIAL)

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

x

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x

ISSUES

AOl.31 A99. 13 A00.27

INDEX NUMBER

A93.17

x x
x
x

l	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLlCATlON FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE ro THE BOARD
2	
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

16 June 200S

FD-2004-00469

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board 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.

ro:

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

FROM:

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

FD-2004-00469	

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at Andrews AFB on 16 June 2005.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit #6:  Applicant's Additional Issues
Exhibit #7:  Character Reference Letter, Ms
The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge and change of reason and authority for discharge are denied.
ISSUE:

Issue 1. The applicant contends her discharge was improper because her case should have received dual processing (medical discharge and administrative discharge) in accordance with AFI 44-157.  The applicant suffered from shortness of breath and chest pain and was undergoing medical testing to determine the nature of her medical problems when she submitted the urine sample that tested positive for cocaine.  At the time she was discharged, her records were being prepared for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) fitness determination due to her diagnosis of asthma.  Therefore, the DRB considered the case as if it should have been a dual processing case.  The DRB determined that any impropriety was a harmless error.  The same personnel who sit on the DRB also sit on the Personnel Boards and hear dual processing cases.  The DRB members were quite certain that, had the applicant's case received dual processing, the administrative discharge for drug abuse would have been given precedence.  Another point merits discussion, although not raised by the applicant as an issue.  AFI 36-3209, paragraph 3.24, requires Secretarial approval of a UOTHC given to an enlisted member.  Despite this provision, the case was not referred to the Secretary.  However, given the facts of this case, the DRB had no doubt that a UOTHC was the appropriate characterization.

Issue 2.  The applicant claims that her discharge was improper because the discharge board that  recommended her discharge in 2003 was aware that she had met a previous discharge board for cocaine use. The applicant's contention is without merit.  The records available to the DRB clearly show the legal advisor to the discharge board gave proper limiting instructions to the discharge board members concerning their use of the information in their deliberations.

Issue 3.  The applicant asked the DRB to consider that the applicant had received an honorable discharge and been allowed to reenlist even though she had faced an administrative discharge board for cocaine use in  1999.  While the applicant was retained and allowed to reenlist, that does not change the misconduct for which she was discharged nor the appropriate service characterization for that discharge.  The DRB recognized that the applicant had served satisfactorily for 17 years before the discharge was executed, but concluded the applicant's misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of her final enlistment.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was substantially consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and that the applicant  was provided full administrative due process. The errors that occurred were harmless and did not prejudice the applicant.	

 	

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