AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
GRADE

X	RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OFCOUNSEL

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x x x
x
x

A94.0S

A67.10 A66.00

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL' SRELEASE TOTHE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITSSUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

BEARJNGDATI:	CASE NUMBER

OS Sep 2013

FD-2010-00468

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, TX78150-4742

ntOM:

SECRETARY Of'THE AJR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISOIARGE REVIEW BOARD ISJS COMMAND DR, EE WING,3RJ) n.OOR ANDREWSAFB, MD l016l-'I001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2010-00468	

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.
ISSUE: Applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct -Drug Abuse (Primary) and Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions (Secondary)

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The record indicates that the applicant received an Article 15 for use of marijuana.  The record shows that the applicant admitted to the use.  Additionally, the applicant received three Letters of Reprimand, one Letter of Admonishment, and three Letters of Counseling for misconduct.   This misconduct included failed to report to duty on time (2x), slept on duty (2x), failed to comply with regulation not to park unlicensed vehicle in dorm parking lot and failed to remove vehicle, failed to go to training, failed to use spotter when operating a government vehicle which resulted in damage to the vehicle and with intent to deceive tried to hide the vehicle, failed to adhere to uniform standards, and allowed another airman to use his ID card to access a computer in violation of OPSEC policy.  After review of the record, the Board found no evidence to indicate that the applicant did
not know right from wrong or that inhis two years and three months of service was unaware of the Air Force policy of zero tolerance to drug use. Additionally, 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 DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and attending college. However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing. The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade. The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on
16 February 2005) that he understood he must receive an Honorable discharge to receive future educational entitlements. The Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits 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