AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE M. MBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

AMN

RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORG/l.NIZA TION OF COUNSEi.

ISSUES

A92.35

INDEX NUMBER

A66.00

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTllER	DENY
x x x
x
x

A93.07

1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 APPLICATION POR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3  LETTER OF NOTIFJCATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITfED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

18 Feb 2010	FD-2008-00408

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

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.

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THF. MR FORCF. l'F,RSONNEL. COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHAll.GE ru:v1i-;w BOA.RP
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD tLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762·7001

AFIIQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARDDECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2008-00408	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at Andrews AFB on 18 Feb 2010.

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

FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge. Change of reason and authority for discharge and change of reenlistment code are 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:

Issue 1. Applicant contends his drug use was an isolated incident during his 35 months of service, with no other adverse actions. For reasons explained in the paragraph below, the DRB found no inequity or impropriety in his discharge.

Issue Applicant contends he was under a Jot stress due to his wife's drug problems and taking care of his newborn son. The record indicates that the applicant was discharged for Misconduct-Drug Abuse. He received an Article 15 and a Letter of Reprimand for wrongful use of marijuana. His drug use was discovered during a random urinalysis and he then admitted to the AFOSI that he had smoked marijuana on the occasion in question and on two other occasions since entering active duty. Additionally, his enlistment paperwork showed he had used marijuana two times prior to entering the Air Force. The applicant stated that he was under a lot of stress because his wife was using drugs and engaging in bizarre behavior, such as filing false reports against him for domestic abuse. The applicant stated he was caring for their newborn son almost exclusively as his wife was unable to care for him. He stated that the stress became too much and he decided to smoke marijuana, which his wife obtained for him at his request. However, he had also stated he had sought help for his wife through ADAPT program personnel and his supervisory chain. This led the DRB to conclude that he was aware of counseling tools available to him to help him cope with the stress, but he chose not to use them. The applicant admitted that he was aware of the Air Force's zero tolerance policy regarding drugs. While the applicant appeared to have otherwise good service during his time in the Air Force, the Board could find no inequity or impropriety in his general discharge for marijuana use, the standard characterization of discharge for Airmen who use marijuana.

CONCL USION: 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 the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

Inview of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and detennines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief