AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AF'SN/SSAN

AMN
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGAN!ZATION OF COUNSEL

x x x
x
x

ISSUES

A92.35

INDEX NUMBER

A66.00

l ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	Al'PLICAT!ON FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFlCA TION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO TIU: BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HF.ARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

13 May 2010	FD-2009-00063

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise appl icant 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.

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

SEClU;TARY Ot' THf: AIR  'ORC!!: n:RSONN:L COllNCtL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW SOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00063	

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

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.

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:

Issue 1 . Applica11t contends discharge was ineq uitable because it was based on an isolated incident. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for wrongful use of marijuana. After a review of the record, the Board found no evidence to indicate that the applicant did not know right from wrong or that in his 23 months of service was unaware of the Air Force policy  of zero tolerance to drug use. The Board found the negative aspects of the willful misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of the applicant's performance and concluded that the discharge was appropriate.

Issue 2.  The applicant stated he was told his discharge would automatically be upgraded.  The Board noted the issue was common result of miscommunication, at the time of discharge, when the applicant is briefed that their discharge will automatically be upgraded after six months.  While a discharge may be upgraded after six months, the upgrade is by no means automatic.  A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the Board can establish that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.  After a thorough review of the record, the Board found no evidence to justify an upgrade of the discharge characterization, reason for the discharge or the reenlistment code.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive req uirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

Jn 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