AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

ITL\L)	GRADE
i
J:-1:rt::("J-L--.l	PERSONA L APPEA RANCE	X Al	RECORD    REVIEW

1 -   .. ----	_L_  	

---------- --------·-------+--- ---------------- ------<

I	cot:,su. ,,1'II·. 01 ( ·oc:-.;su. ·l\D \>I< 0RG,1\1z.1TIO\	ADDRESS A\D 01< oRC;ANI7 \TIO\ oF COL\SEL
!  n-:	'\"n
x
VOTE OF 11IE BOARD
.. ·

M EMBER SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTH rn

DENY

x x

·------- ------ ----------- ,----	--
AO I.59	I.  J'.\UI·.'\ '\l \J !ll·.R
i

i

A66.00

x x x
EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
1	ORDER i\PPOINTING THE BOi\RD
2	i\Pl'LICi\TION  FOR  REV ll:W OF DISCfli\J{'(iL

i	3	LET!"ER OF NOTIFICATION	.
i	4	BRIEF OfM'ERSONNEL FILE

1

1

I	COUNSEL'S  RELEASE TO Tiff  BOARD

_,_,,_ 	 ..

i\DDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBM ITITD AT TIME OF
·---I-+----	---+-----11 +---Ti\PE rn coRDINCi OF PERSON/\!. i\l'PE:\Ri\NCI'

I	PERSONi

\L. i\PPLi\R ANCL

I ll·. U<J.'\t , 1; \Tl·	i   C:\SL    L:\I BLW.
I
29 Dec 200.5	j        FD-2005-00275

.\!'i'! J:  \'7   'J.,·<11  1\:'1; ! 1 11 ilf )ARI J'S IJ\J ISION1\L ll1\JION,\I AHi. DISCUS-Sl'll ON Jlll.l\Tl'ACllED AIR I ORCJ' J)JSC'lli\l<GE RFVILWl.IOARD DLC!S!ONAL Rl\TIONAl.I

i (·;1st: hea rd a t  Wash i ngton, D.C.

: ·\d visi.' a ppl ica n t of t he decision of t he Boa rd, t he righ t to a personal appeara nce wi th/wit hou t cou nsel, and t he right to
! '.u bmit :111 appl ica t ion w t he i\ FBCM R.

i Nanh::s  rn d vot es ,,,·i l l be made avai h1 ble to t he applica nt at t he applican t's request.
I
i
I
i

'

'
''

i! ....J t;\ \ 'l"l 'Of..;rf'H ' " - -•·. --...    ------------

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSO\ EL C<ll'CIL
.-\IR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
l S35 COM:l-IA\D DR. EE Wl'.\G, 3RD FLOOR
·\NOREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

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

A lR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00275	

G EN ERAL:  The appl ica nt appeals for upgrade of discha rge to hono rable.

The appl icant was offered a pe rsonal appeara nce before the Discha rge Rev iew Boa rd (DRB) bu t decl ined to exercise t his right.

The a t t ached  brief  conta i ns ava il able pertinent  data on the applica n t and  the factors lead ing to the discharge. FI N DIN GS:   U pgrade  of  d ischarge  is denied.
The  Boa rd  finds  t ha t   nei ther  the  evidence  of  reco rd  nor  that  provided   by  the  applica nt  substa ntiates  an i neq u i t y or i m propriety  that wou ld just ify a change of discharge.

ISSU E:  Appl icant received a Gene ral Discharge for Dru g Abuse.

i\ppl ican t  contends d ischarge  was im proper  beca use  he me t  all of  the retention  criteria  specified  by  Chapter  5, AFI 36-32\ lo. and t hat  bot h h is S O/CC  and  WG/CC recommended  that he be retai ned.  The records
i nd ica i ed t he appl ican t  recei ved an A rt icle  15 for w rongful l y  usi ng Percocet  on divers occasions.   Whil e the hoard  noted  tha t  his SQ/CC did cha nge  his i nit ial  recom mendation  from separation  wit h  a  General  d ischarge t o re te nt ion, t he records  i nd icate that  h is WG/CC, the separation  au thori t y, signed  a memora nd um stating
,  that appl icant  d id not  prove  t ha t he me t the seven retention criteria  as req u ired by  AFR  36-3208, paragraph
! 5.55.2, and d irected t hat appl ica nt be discharged for Drug Abuse wi th a General characterization. The DR B opi ned t hat appl ica nt" s cond uct d id not i nvol ve drug experimentation consid eri ng that he admitted i n his own st ateme n ts tha t  he used Percocei on two separate occasions almost one year apart, and further opined that
t h is cond uct is nei ther isol ated nor expe rimen tal as contem plated by the AFI.  The DRB took note of the
<1 ppl ica n t 's du t y  performa nce as documented  by  his performance  reports, l etters of recommendat ion and
other  accom pl ish ments.   They fou nd  the seriousness of t he w i l l fu l  misconduct  offset any posi tiv e aspects of t he appl i cant 's du t y performance.	The  Board  concl uded  the  misconduct  was  a  significa nt  departure  from conduct  expected  of  a il mil i ta ry  mem bers.   The cha racte riza t ion of the d ischarge received  by the applica nt was fou nd  lo  be  appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS:  The  Discha rge  Rev iew  Board  concl udes  that   the   discharge   was   consistent   with   the proced ura l and substant ive req u irements of the discharge regulation and was withi n the d iscretion of  the discharge a11 i hori1 y and  tha t  lhe appl ica nt was prov ided full administrative  due process.

I n  v i ew of  t he  foregoi ng find ings the  Board  fu rther  concl udes that there  exists no legal  or equ itable basis for u pgrade  of d ischarge.  t h us the appl ican t's d ischarge should not be changed.
I

Attachme nt:
Exam i ner's Brief

I I