AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL APPEARANCE	X	RECORD  REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

MEMBER SITTING

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

[-- -	-	---- ,-,

'	'	--- /
'	'	-   -

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

x x

ISSUES

AOl.25 A85.0l A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A66.00

x 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

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

17 Aug 2012	FD-2010-00007

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:

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

FROM:

SECRETARY  OF THE AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
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-2010-00007	

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:	Applicant  received  an  Under  Other  Than  Honorable  Conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  for Misconduct  -Drug  Abuse.

Issue 1 - Applicant contends his discharge was improper because it was based on hearsay evidence without any physical evidence of his guilt.  The record indicates that the applicant was discharged for Misconduct­ Drug Abuse.  The record indicates there were multiple witnesses to applicant's distributing, possessing and using marijuana and the applicant was preferred with drug-related charges and specifications.  The record indicates applicant signed a pre-trial agreement on 18 May 2009 in which he waived his right to a board hearing in exchange for the court dropping the charges and specifications.  The applicant was given an Article 15 and presented his case to his commander, subsequently being administratively discharged.   The DRB opined the applicant was given due process and found insufficient mitigation or extenuation to upgrade the discharge.  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 almost nine years of service was unaware of the Air Force policy of zero tolerance to drug use.  The Board concluded the applicant's misconduct was a significant departure  from conduct expected of all military members, especially those with the experience and rank of the applicant.  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.

Issue 2 - Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends his discharge was too harsh and as a result, he is having difficulty finding employment.  He contends his discharge should be upgraded to honorable based on his other acts of merit during his career.  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.  The Board was sympathetic to the impact the characterization of his discharge was having on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

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