AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NA.Mt:OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDllU:INlTIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x

x x x
x

ISSUES	A92.37 AOl.47

llEARING  DATE	CASF: NUMllER

05 Aug 2010	FD-2009-00094

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF D!SCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4  BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

AA1'10NALE.

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.

r1		

,,+nc,'.':::ft,;·'::·'·.·t't.•:'·· . ;	

::·.·.	·u,;·,		
				
TO:	
SAFIMRnR
550 C STREET W '.ST, RANDOLPH AF    TX	

UITE 40
R J 50·4742	FROM:	
SECRETARY OF TI!E AIR FORCE PERSONNM. CO!TNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
!S35 COMMAND  DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 10762·7001		

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

Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL- RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00094	

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

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 perti nent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

After a review of the record, the Board unanimously  voted to grant the relief of the requested  upgrade as discussed below.

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.

ISSUES:

Issue l . Applicant contends his discharge was improper or inequitable because he did not receive the treatment or medical intervention he needed to address his marijuana and alcohol addictions.  Applicant believes had he received this,	could have continued to be a productive member of the military service.  A review of applicant's medical records disclosed an entry dated June 6, 2006, indicating that applicant was receiving ADAPT services; a subsequent entry stated applicant refused ADAPT services and was referred back to his unit.  Therefore, the Board concluded that it was applicant's choice not to receive the treatment offered to him.  The Board could find no inequity or impropriety for the discharge based on applicant's assertions.

Issue	The record  indicates that the applicant was discharged for Misconduct-Drug Abuse.  He received a Special Court Martial for wrongful use of marijuana.  At trial there was both a Stipulation of Fact and an unswom statement wherein applicant admitted his drug abuse.	Additionally, at the time of the recommendation for discharge, applicant was entitled to an Administrative Discharge Board, but waived his right to said board.  After review of the record, the Board found no evidence to indicate that the applicant was unaware of the Air Force policy of zero tolerance to drug use, or that he was improperly treated in any way.  The Board found the negative aspects of applicant's admitted willful misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of the applicant's performance and concluded that the discharge was appropriate.

Issue		Applicant infers he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when he was younger, and notes that he would like to serve his country again.  The DRB noted the applicant was 26 years of	when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from \\Tong.  The Board opined the applicant was older than the vast majority of members who properly adhere to Air Force's standards of conduct.  The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate	to the misconduct.

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 findi ngs, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attaclunent: Examiner's Brief