AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME DI' SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

SRA
X	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING	DENY
X*+ X*+ X*+
X*+

X*+

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE LETTER OF NOTJFICA TION
BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE  Nl:MBER

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal  appearance withJwithout counsel, 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.

*Reason and Authority
+Reenlistment  Code

SAl'/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUJTE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD  'LOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20761-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMllER

FD-2009-00058	

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 was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

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

FINDING: 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.

ISSUE:

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. He submits that he believes his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident during his 58 months of service. The record indicates the applicant received an Article 15 for wrongfully inhaling Endust for Electronics with the intent to become intoxicated on 27 March 2004. Although the applicant has no previous disciplinary infractions, drug abuse is incompatible with military service. Drug abuse is illegal and includes any intoxicating substance, other than alcohol, that is inhaled, injected, consumed, or introduced into the body in any manner for purpose of altering mood or function. The Board concluded the misconduct was significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

CONCLUSION: 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.

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

Attachment: Examiner's Brief