AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FlRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

;-------------------------
'' ------------------------- ''

MSGT	-' --------------'

'

'	'

---------------'

TYPE VOTH	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW
AIJIJKESS ANO OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

SSUES

A94.05

MEMBER SITTING

INDEX NUMBER	A66.00

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x

x x x x

ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	Al'l'LICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCI IARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FI LE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

22 Sep 2006	FD-2005-00334

Case heard i n 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 wi ll be made available to the appl icant at the appl icant's req uest.

t.

7
-------------------- ·

'---------------------------------------------------------------, ---------------------------------------- '

TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781 50-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762- 7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOA RD DECISI ONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBF.R

FD-2005-00334	

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  appl icant  substantiates  an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. He cites his discharge characterization was improper and that he should have received an honorable discharge in accordance with AFI 36-3209.  The records indicated the applicant received an Under Other Than Honorable discharge for misconduct, commission of a serious offense - 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. The board noted the applicant cited the case of	J v. Secretary of Defense in support_of his contention that he should receive an upgrade to an honorable discharge. Unfortunately for the applicant, the information he provided and in his case file is insufficient to demonstrate that the case is applicable to his situation. Ifhe has proof that his alleged drug use either did not occur or occurred while he was in a civilian status, he should present this evidence to the ORB. Additionally, he should be aware that even if it is applicable to his case, the - case does not mandate he necessaril y receive an honorable service characterization. Typically, reservists who are separated for drug use in civilian status receive an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. However, the applicant may be able to show that an honorable conditions discharge is appropriate in his  case.

Ifhe can provide additional documented information to substantiate an issue, the appl icant should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  Ifhe should choose to exercise his right to a personal appearance hearing, the appl icant should be prepared to provide the DRB with factual
evidence of the inequity and any exemplary post-service accomplishments as well as any contributions to the community.

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.

In 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