AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

CAPT
X	RECORD REVIE
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

X* X* X*

ISSUES

AOl.13
A02.17 A92.21 AOl.17 AOl.31 AOl.39 AOl.21 AOl.23

INDEX NUMBER

A66.00

X*
X*

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

A94.05

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

04 Feb 2011	FD-2009-00061

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without  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

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE Rf \ IE\\ BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE \\ 1'<.. JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762 -,_,,

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00061	

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

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:	The Board  denies the upgrade  of the discharge  and change of reason  and authority  for discharge.

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 discharge was improper due to violation of his Fourth Amendment Rights whereas The Office of Special Investigations (OSI) performed an illegal search and seizure; investigation documents were falsified; failure to stop questioning after repeated attempts requested by applicant; failure to adhere to applicant's request to speak with his commander; his Area Defense Counsel was inadequate; failure to clarify OSI's processes and procedures; .

Issue 2: Applicant contends his discharge was improper due to failure to submit proper documents to the Secretary of the Air Force; prejudicial information was provided to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC); failure to provide copies of Disposition Report to applicant, failure to correct administrative errors within the Report of Investigation (ROI); use of illegal evidence; and failure to complete his case in an understandable format.

Issue 3: Applicant contends his dis.charge was improper due to inadequate Area Defense Counsel

Issue 4: Applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation and other accomplishments. They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance. The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

Issue 5: The DRB was pleased to see the applicant was doing well.  Ilowever, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing.  Th Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.	
Issue 6: Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for usi ng marijuana. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opport u nities to change his negative behavior. The Board concluded that the :µegative aspects of the applicant· s service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career. The characterizat ion of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.	

'

1

,
:
1

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