AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
--- - ... IT   A <;:T. FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

TYPE GEN

x

RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATJON OF COUNSEL

YES

No
x

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A93. 17
A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A66.00

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETIER 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

26 Aug 2005	FD-2005-00183

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:
SAF/MRBR
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, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 10761-7001	

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00183	

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.

ISSUES:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for wrongfully possessing and use of marijuana.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The Board also  noted the applicant was age 24 and on his second enlistment when his misconduct occurred and there is no indication he did not know right from wrong.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2. The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits asjustification for upgrade. The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on December 29, 1997) 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