._...

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME 01''SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
i	SGT	.
TYPE UOTH   x	I	PERSONAL    APPEARANCE	I	RECORD   REVIEW
COUNSEL  '·• ,    NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL YES	No
x

-	...	..,
'	
YQTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER   SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x
x

- - .--...    -- ..... .--.:,_  .	-  ·'·-	..--·-----.......,._.,_, _    . _,,
ISSUES	A92.21	INDEX NUMBER	A94.39

X+

x
x
EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO UIE BOARD ·

A02.04	1	ORDER APPOJNTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICA TJON
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDJNG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUJ\lBER

20 May 2005	FD-2005-00035
APPLICA'.NT'S !SS.VE.AND THE BOARD'S DECISION.AL RATIONAL ARE DJS.CUSSED Olf Tl'IE ATTAQlED AlR FQl,lCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	" ·. ' ··,·..
'·
Case heard via video-teleconference between St. Augustine, Florida, and Andrews AFB, Maryland. Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, and the right to submit an appl ication to the AFBCMR. Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's req uest.

+ CHANGE REASON AND AUTHOR1TY TO SECRETAR1AL AUTHORITY
A
Dn   nn. "u"'""  1u-.....rr
I

..

INDORS.EMENT .. '	DATE: 512012005
,..	,_--- -_,_--- ··-·---'--· --,.·-  ·  --			·--,..-----·-·--
TOo	FROl\lo
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY Of THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COU1'CIL
AIR FORCE DISCHAllGE REVIEW BOAR))
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	IS3 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78 I 50,.4742	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
"[i':
-
j

CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00035

t

GENERAL:	The  applicant  appeals  for  upgrade  of  discharge  to  Honorable,	change  the  reason  and authority for the discharge and to change the reenlistment code.

f

l
The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), f ithout counsel, via video-
teleconference between St. Augustine, Florida, and Andrews AFB, Maryland, on	May 2005 .
. A'.
The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factor)eading to the discharge.
;l.
FINDINGS:   Upgrade of discharge to Honorable is granted; however, change otr reason and authority for discharge and change of reenlistment code are denied.	}.
.,.
The  Board  finds  that  the  evidence  of  record  substantiates  an  impropriety  that justifies  an  upgrade  of discharge but does not justify a change in the reason for discharge or reenlistment code.

ISSUE:

Issue l . Applicant contends discharge was improper because he was never notified of his entitlement to have his case heard before an administrative discharge board.  The record shows that he was board entitled on three separate grounds.  He was a non-commissioned officer, he had served for over six years and his command sought an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The record does not contain any
evidence he was offered an administrative discharge board hearing and the applicant testified that he was not told he could request an administrative discharge board.  In light of the importance of the rights given in a board hearing (including the right to confront and question the respondent's accusers, to present evidence
and testimony from witnesses favorable to him and the ability to personally present his case and possibly testify himself before a panel of three disinterested officers of varying seniority and backgrounds), the DRB concluded the failure to comply with the respondent's due process right to a discharge board under Air Force regulations was not harmless error.  While the board does not condone the respondent's actions, under the facts of this particular case there was substantial doubt that he would have been discharged.  It is possible
that a discharge board could have decided that he fit the retention criteria for a member who has used drugs. Therefore, the board granted the requested relief of an upgrade in service characterization.

Issue 2.  Applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports and other accomplishments.  The DRB found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset the positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance and concluded that change of reason for discharge and reenlistment code was inappropriate due to the drug abuse which caused the respondent's discharge.

Issue 3.  Applicant believes his discharge should be upgraded because of his post-service activities.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job.  Horever, the DRB concluded the misconduct of the appl i cant is shown correctly in the reason for discharge and reenlistment code.

Issue 4.  Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made years ago. The DRB recognized the misconduct occuned in 1994.  However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  The applicant was an NCO and older than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct.  The DRB concluded that the reason for discharge and the reenlistment code should not be changed.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was not consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and that the overall quality  of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge.  The DRB takes this action due to the failure to notify the applicant of his right to an administrative discharge board. Despite this failure, there is no doubt the applicant engaged in an instance of drug use and that allowing him to reenlist would not be in the best interest of the Air Force. Therefore, the DRB did not change the reason for discharge or the reenlistment code. The applicant's characterization should be changed to Honorable under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief