AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AB
X	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

x x x
x x

A94.11 A94.39 A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A66.00

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
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

24 Feb 2011

FD-2009-00104

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.

TO:

FROM:

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

\

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00104	

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.

ISSUES:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, a Letter of Reprimand, and a Letter of Counseling for misconduct. His infractions included dereliction of duty, a dress and appearance violation, and use of marijuana. Applicant stated he did not have a positive drug test, and was not "convicted" of drug abuse. The record indicated that applicant's drug abuse was identified during the course of an Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) investigation in which three eye witnesses to his drug abuse gave statements against him. After review of the record, the Board found no evidence to indicate that the applicant did not know right from wrong or that in his time in 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. Applicant states that his unit commander did not allow him to consult an attorney before he (applicant) was permanently decertified, presumably from Security Forces duties and I or the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) (applicant does not specify what he was decertified from). There is no evidence however that applicant was not allowed to consult an attorney relative to receipt of his Article 15, or the processing of the discharge action. Evidence is to the contrary that he did consult an attorney at the time of his Article 15 and was given the opportunity to consult an attorney during his discharge processing. Therefore, no impropriety was found in the processing of the discharge, and the characterization of applicant's service was deemed to be appropriate due to his 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 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