AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
.---- --- -- --- --- --- -.	AMN	-..-_ -_ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ ·,
' ------------------·'	'	'
TYPE  UOTH	I	PERSONAL    APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD    REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL YES	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
·'   ---------------------------------	x
''
''	x

'

'
---:
''	x
-:''

'

''

'
--:
''

x
x
----------------------------------

ISSUES	A93.0l	INDEX NUMBER	A94.07	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER 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 HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

16 Nov 2006	FD-2006-00342
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

The applicant was scheduled for a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) via video teleconference between Andrews AFB, Maryland and Travis AFB, California but failed to appear or notify the board

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board 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.

-•••.....,.• •••••••••••••••••••••4"'1• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••,.,...•••••••••••r   ---·  ••••••••••••••
t'	''
I	''
'	'
'	'
l!.---------------------------------------------------------------1   ··-------------------------------------
INDORSEMENT	DATE: 11116/2006
TO'	FROM'
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
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-2006-00342	

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

The applicant was scheduled for a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) via video teleconference between Andrews AFB, Maryland and Travis AFB, California but failed to appear or notify the board.

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.

ISSUE: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for misconduct. The misconduct included failure to go to his appointed place of duty. Court martial charges were also preferred against the applicant. He was charged with two specifications of wrongful distribution and use of Testosterone Steroids, a Schedule III controlled substance. He submitted a request for discharge in lieu of court-martial and his request was approved. The applicant self-identified for steroid use in April 1997. On December 26, 1997, the applicant sold Steroids to a confidential informant of the Houston County Sherriff s Office. During the course of an investigation, the applicant admitted, in written and oral testimony, to the Air Force Office of Special investigations to the use and distribution of Steroids on multiple  occasions. 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.

Applicant also contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young.  The DRB recognized the applicant was 21 years of age when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  The Board opined the applicant was older
than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct. The DRB concluded that the characterization  of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

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