r
I	AlR FORCE DISCHA RGE REVJEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NA M E OF SERV ICE M EMllER (IAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL!	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

'

,-------------------------------,	---------------

'	'	'	'

--·

x

'	'	SSGT		' '-------------------------------- '		''- - - -- - - - - - - -- - -' 	

TYl'E  UOTH	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
I	I

RECORD REVIEW

COUNSEL	1".\ME OF COli SEL N\'D OR OR(;,\'.\IZATJON	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANJl.YfION OF COL   'iEI.
'i:..;	'n
x

MEMBER SITTING

x

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

VOTE OF THE BOARD

. > T     .

'	- ---------
flON	GEN	UOTIJC	OTHER	L>t:N Y

'
'
H
x
H
x

x

r:
'
'
'

x

i
' '-------------------------------------
lSl'ES	A94.53	INDEX     U'.\1BER	A94.07	·.	EXHIBl1l'S SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
A94.05	I	ORDER APPOINTI NG Tl IE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR Rl'VIEW OF lllSCI l/\IWI'
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILI'
COUNSEl S RFLEASE TO Tl II' BOARD ADDITIONAL EXIllBITS SUBM ITTF[) Al TIME or
PERSONAL APPEARAN< I
TAPE RECORDING OF PLRSONAL Al'l'EAR.-\N( 'E

l l F_\H:l:\(,  1>.\Tl·.	CASE    1\lJMBER

13 Apr 2006	FD-2005-00445
APJ'I H'/\;'\!'J 'S lhSUE ANI> T11h if.(>ARIJ'5 Dl·,CISJ(h'fAJ, f<ArlONAL ARI llfSC'OS Hl>QN lllf'. ATfACIIEP AlR f(lRCE l)(S{'UAR<JE fUMhW UOARO (}f:-:ClSJONAL RA't10NAl.E

'

Case heard at Washi ngton, D.C.

Ad vise applicant of t he decision of t he Board and the right to submit an application  to the A FBCMR Names and votes wi l l  be made ava i l able to t he applicant at the applicanrs req uest.

I
'
_ _ _.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'
'

i - - -	- - -- - - - - - - -	INDORSEME'NT
t  . . --- -	--- -- -------------	--- --	------	-	------.--	 	
1 0:	FRO"I:

DATE:  4/14/2006
------ -----· -------------·

SM/M R BR
5.'0 C STREl'.T Wl·SI'. SUIT!· 40
Ri\NDOLPll 1\l'B. TX 78150-4742

SECRET.t\RY 01'' Tim AIR FOKCE PEKSONNEL COFCTI.
AIR  FORCE  DISCHARG£  REVIEW  BOARD 15J.5 COM'-'IA'SD  DR EE WING. 3RD l;'LOOI< ANDREWS  AFB, MD 20762·7002

------------------------'------------------------------.!
AFHQ FOR M 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edit ion will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00445	

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

The  applicant  appeared  and  testified  before  the  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB),  without  counsel,  at Andrews AFB, MD, on 13 Apr 2006.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit #5: Applicant's Biography
Exhibit #6: Eight Letters and Certificates of Appreciation Exhibit #7: Eight Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs)

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:   The discharge is upgraded to general.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change of discharge. However, based upon the  record  and  evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's characterization of discharge inequitable.

ISSUE:	Applicant received an Under Other Than Honorable  Conditions Discharge  (Discharge in Lieu of Court Martial).

Issue 1. Applicant contends an upgrade will better his life as well as his family's quality oflife so he can better his employment to continue his role as a responsible citizen and community role model.  The Board was sympathetic to the impact that the discharge characterization was having on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

Issue 2.  Applicant contends that the discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and did not truly reflect his eight years of outstanding service, hard work, and commitment. The records indicated the applicant tested positive for the wrongful use of marijuana on two urinalysis tests from the AF Drug Testing Lab at Brooks AFB, TX, and that the applicant, through his civilian defense counsel, requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The DRB noted that, although the applicant's misconduct was serious, it was not aggravated.  He had been an NCO for only eight months and, had he been a senior airman, the matter would likely have resulted in non-judicial punishment with a subsequent general discharge characterization. The DRB also noted that there is no evidence that he used drugs on duty, used with other active service members, or distributed drugs to anyone, that this case involves two low-level marijuana usages, and that the lab report indicated the concentration of drugs in applicant's system on both occasions was just above DoD cutoff for drug testing. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation, awards and decorations, and other accomplishments over  his eight years of service, and opined that a UOTHC discharge characterization did not accurately reflect his overall service.  The DRB felt a general discharge characterization was more appropriate in that applicant's service had been honest and faithful, but that his wrongful use of marijuana outweighed the positive aspects of applicant's military record thus not warranting an upgrade to an honorable discharge.

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.	

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by a discharge Under Honorable Conditions (General). The applicant's characterization should be changed to General under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief