AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD HEARING RECORD	I
ITIAL)	GRADE

TYPE GEN

--·- -- --
I	PERSONAL    APPEARANCE	x

AMN
I

I
RECORD REVIEW

,, cput11t\·:rn::. NAME 01' COUNSEL ANO OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  (ff COUNSEL YES	No
x	-·----

<    ' •  ' \ '	•           •          .,,.-	,.:.

,I :::;-:;, : ;1tt'iij';'/;·;;'.:·:% VdJEUFTl:lEBOARD , ,;::, /'· i:' :i-::: ,, \ -::· )-

MEMBER  SITTING

lh
HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x
x x

ISSUES	A92.35	INDEX NUMBER	A66.00	IK:B;'': 1.:f;\l'-lB Ts sUB)\:liTTED To,7 9J?, 1:c:<1c;11: .-' .· --(
A93. 19	I ORDER APPOINTING THE BOAR D
A92.0l	2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
A93.09	3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL  FILE	-
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITION AL EXHl BITS SUBM ITTED AT TIM E OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING Of PERSONA L APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBF.R

13 Feb 2006	FD-2005-00326

<

V&?'.l:1	., , 1',-s;l!f;1\}·M"l'::"*" l	-Zf ON, ,E ATTAC Al FORf:E DHGE RliVl_EW BOARD DECISIONAL'RATIOJl!A:L!f :: \;\'';';:'tK:;':.>:'.?:'"' , \"">"/· ..._<, ·._
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.

ll\J•)l,"11"111) ....... ....................... n ..... U-	J)	I., .,•.-- - - • -- _:Jj_  ----

l.	'	/._	·J

;eP'

- --  -

WiW.81fi[Vif,   .<r;;/flt	:.)  '\      j;,	<',1+)"· ··: .	-'.= ;,:\.

:%	'""''	It	.-	' J!l1'i1'f:: . -/ "   l'"i':' ' :;• :·, : :·:: .': 1 .'' 'r '?c ;;,:;:;f.b:'. ·. \ ..··. ; ...])A;n<::- - zq.1J!W':·,:· .· ,;j'. ;,i
TO:	!'ROM:
SAF/M RBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR  !'ORCE PERSONNEL  COUNCIL
AIR t"ORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD l'LOOR
RANDOLPH  AFB, TX 78150-4742	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	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00326	

GENERAi,:  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

1.	Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was based on two relatively minor incidents. The records indicated the applicant received two Article J 5s and a Letter of Counseling for misconduct. The misconduct included possession of eleven Percocet pills, a Schedule II controlled  substance,  soliciting another airman to sell his Percocet pills, disobeying a lawful order by consuming more than two alcoholic beverages in a day while deployed Manas AB, Kyrgyz  Republic, and a computer security violation. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The records indicated that the applicant was self-referred to Life Skills for alcoholism and enroll ed into the ADAPT program in November 2002. The death of the applicant's best friend in Iraq was taken into account by the DRB. The board also discussed the Air Force Policy on drug abuse. 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.

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.  They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

3.	The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification  for upgrade.  The ORB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on September 9, 2000) 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.

Jn 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