ATR l?OR r.. n•scHARGE REVIEW BOARn Hl? "'RTNr:!Dli'IY>DT> E INITIAL)

TYPE UOTH	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

YES	No

l\1flL\IBERSll'TING

HON	GEN	. UOTHC

x

OTHER

DENY
x
x

x x

ISSUES

A94.01 A66.00

INDEX  NUPtlBER

A67.70

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 NUMBER

16 Aug 2005	FD-2005-00045

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.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

TO:

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 COMl.IAND DR, EE WING, JR» FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIE\V BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00045	

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

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 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:

Issue 1. Applicant was discharged with an Under Other than Honorable Discharge for misconduct-­ specifically, drug abuse.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, for using marijuana at or near the country of Turkey, while receiving special pay under Title 37 U.S.C. 310.  The Board noted the applicant was a 23-year old noncommissioned officer serving his second enlistment when his misconduct occurred.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2 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, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing. The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

Issue 3.  The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification  for upgrade.  The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed statements (DD Form 2366, on May 5, 1997 and his unconditional waiver, December 5, 2002) that he understood he must receive an Honorable discharge to receive future educational entitlements.  The Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits was having on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

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.

Inview 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