AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARO I-IEARING RECORD
'IAM F: OF s nV l('F \IFl\IHFI (l.Al;T,FmST \110 01.•·l'llTIAI.)	<:  A W	AFSN/SSAN
(b) (6)	(b) (6)
TYPE G EN	I	PERSONAL   APPEARAN CE	x	I	RECORD   REVIEW
cou.-. EL	'\\If 01 < Ol ''ti."DOR ORG\Ml..\TIO'	\DOR I "'"O OR ORC "11-\110'01 C-Ol '>t.L
HS	,.
x

IEMBER SITTI:"JG	,_

\'O rE OF lllE BOARD
llON	Gl:N	UOl llC	Ol llER	DE  y

(b) (6)	x
x x x
x

l'\l F\

AO l .00	1\01 \  l\Ht• f(	A66.00

:x111n n s SIJllM l'ITEI> TO TllE BOARD
I ORDI R ,\l'l'OINI IM; 1111 BO\IW
2  \Pl'IIC/\ IION l()R RIVJr\\" 01 nlSCll \RGr

3..

II lIIR 01 NOl 11 IC' \TION
DRll I 01 Pl RSONNI I IIII
( rn·-.:sr I·s RI II \SI I() IIll llO \HD
\ODIIION \I IXI llUI 1::, SI Bl\111111) \ r Tl I[OF
l'I R\0'1\I \l'l'I \R \'Cl
I\Pl RI ( OR()IS(, 01 l'I l\SO'- \I \Pl'fc.\R.\l':\E HE \Rl'1G

11£ \R"(; 0 \11	( \' l\18CR

11 Feb 20 15	F0-20 1.4-00.t26
\PPlK"AT  1<;qr A'-D Tlif ""ARD"' orn;I(), \I RAff()•.,\1 r AR£ DIVl'<;. fDO'TREATTAOffDAIR FO!trf ON'fl\RCir RrVI£\\ fUl•RO DI< l\lf>'-\1 RHl<"l'-AI F

Case heard in Wash ington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right 10 a personal appearance with/without counsel. and 1he right to subm il an applicat ion to the A FBCM R.

(b) (6)	---

l;\OOR!)t:\lt.:'\ r	OA'It:: l/ 16/2015
TO	tf<O\I·
<., \r 1RllR	\IC RIT\R\  Of  fllf  \IR IORCI Pl RO"ll (01 \("IL
\lit f ()lt( I Ill'>( II \Ml.I IU \It.\\ BU \Kil
550 ( Sl RI 1 1 \\ I!:> I .'-l 111 40	lI< (Q\1\1 "0 OR.H \I "t,JRD f I OOR
R \NDOl 1'11 \I 'll. IX .,11\0-l.J	\\llltl \\\ \18.\11)1076:-1001

---

AFl-IQ FORi\I 0-2077,.IA  I00	{FF-V2)	Pre\'ious

AIR FORCE DISCHARG E R EVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	C,\SE NOIBER

FD-2014-00426	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) but decl ined and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

The attached brief contains available pe1tinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDING : The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.
ISSU E: The applican t recei ved a General discharge for Miscond uct - Drug Abuse

The A i r Force Discha rge Review Board, under its responsi bi l i ty to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, is authorized to change the characteri zation of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warra nted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regulari ty i n the conduct of governmental affa i rs unless there is substantial cred ible evidence to rebut the  presumption, to incl ude evidence submitted by the appl icant. The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant" s record of service did not include a discharge package on file and one was not recei ved by t he appl ican t or t he GB.  The record of se1Yice did incl ude a discharge order indicating reason for discharge as drug abuse.

The applicant contends discharge was improper due to the way t hat his uri nal ysis testing was hand led and the discharge not i fication procedures.  Upon review of the record, t he Board was unable to find any documentat ion regard ing the discharge. Applicant did submit documentation he recei ved during the
noti fication of discharge. but due to lack of evidence and support ing docu men tation to explain the discharge, the Board concludes tha t t he m isconduct was a signi ficant departu re from the cond uct expected of a l l
mi litary mem bers. The Board relics on the presum pt ion or regulari ty and ti nds the characterization; reason
for discha rge and t he reenl istmen t code were appropriate.

CONC LUSION: The Discharge Review Board concl udes t hat the discharge was  consistent  with  the proced ural and substant i ve req uirements of the discha rge regulat ion, was within the discretion of t he discharge authori ty, and that the applicant was provided full administ rati ve due process.

I n view of the foregoi ng find ings, the Board further concludes that t here exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discha rge and determines the discharge should remai n unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief