AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERYIO:MEMBF:R (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL}	GR.\DE	AFSJ\i/SSAN

RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AN[J OR ORGANIZATION  Of COUNSFL

HF.ARING llATF'.

CASE NUMBER

Case heard in Washington, D.C. vi a video teleconference with

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to s

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the

*Reason and Authority
+Reenlistment Code

		COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD	
		ADDITIONAL EX!TTBITS SUBMITTED AT TTME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
		TAPE RECORDING Of PERSONAL APPEARt\NCE I!EARING	

Randolph AFB, Texas.

ubmit an appl ication to the AFBCMR. applicant's req uest.	

TO:

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR HlRCE PERSONNEL <.:OUN('IL AIR fO!!CF. lllSCHARGE REVU::W BOARD
15>5 COMMAND !JR, EE WING, 31tlJ t'LOOR A:'ilJREWS AFB. MD 20762-7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, .JAN 00

(EP-V2)

Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAl, RATIONALE-	CASE l'\UMBER

FD-2009-00028	

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), with counsel  from the Texas Veterans Commission (Mr A), via video teleconference between Andrews AFB Maryland and Randolph AFB, Texas on 10 Aug 2010.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 5: Applicant's Contentions

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.

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:

I .  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and feels he should not have been  court  martialed.	The  records  indicated  the  applicant  had  a  Special  Court  Martial	attempting
\\TOngful possess of lysergic acid diethylamide and wrongful usc of marijuana. He was punished with confinement for 3 months, reduction in grade to Airman Basic, and an Under Honorable Discharge (General). After a review of the record and  the applicant's testimony, the Board found no evidence to indicate that the applicant did not know right from wrong or that in his two years of service was unaware of the Air Force policy of zero tolerance to drug use. The Board concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions he made m his Air Force  career.  The characterization of the discharge received by lhe applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2. The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and is self employed with a good job. However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing.
1l1c Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concl udes 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 appli cant was provid ed full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concl udes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for	
upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attaclunent: Examiner's Brief