AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2019-00230	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 16 Apr 04 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Fraudulent Entry Into Military Service.  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to Honorable, a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.  

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, via video teleconference using VIDYO Cloud Connect between Joint Base Andrews, MD, and applicant’s home address on 9 Jun 20.  No witnesses were present and testified on the applicant’s behalf.  The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:  character reference letters and photos with foreign dignitaries.

The attached examiner’s brief (provided to applicant only), extracted from available service records, contains pertinent data regarding the circumstances and character of the applicant’s military service. 
  
FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to Honorable, to change the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority, and to change the reenlistment eligibility code to 3K.

DISCUSSION:  The DRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the characterization of service and the narrative reason for discharge if such changes are warranted.  If applicable, the board can also change the applicant’s reenlistment eligibility code.  In reviewing discharges, the board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the applicant.  The board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to determine if the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  

The applicant’s record of service did not include any disciplinary actions. 

The applicant contended the discharge was improper because he was instructed by a recruiter to answer “No” to all of the drug use questions.  The applicant states the recruiter told him to answer no because the use was experimental, in the past, and no longer a problem.  He insists that he had no criminal drug use history, and the usage was experimental while in college. The applicant states he disclosed the drug use on the prescreening interview at the Defense Language Institute, because he was applying the integrity principles learned during his BMT journey.  The applicant states that he was summoned to the First Sergeant and read his rights.  He insists his immediate supervisor informed him that if he asked for a lawyer then he would be separated from the Air Force.  He states his supervisor then instructed him to waive his rights under Article 31if he wanted to stay in the military, and initially denied to waive his rights.  The applicant insists that after being read his rights by his supervisor and superintendent in his dorm again, he waived his rights.  He then admitted to using cocaine while in college, and both told him they would write retention recommendation letters on his behalf to submit with his written recollection of the past drug use.  The applicant states that once he submitted the written statement, his supervisor and superintendent refused to write their letters of support.  The applicant believes that if AFI 36-3208 para 6.9.2, mandating the Commander obtain military legal counsel for airmen identified for involuntary separation were in place at the time of his separation, then he would have likely received more favorable treatment and possibly retained.  The applicant points to the completion of his MBA, the rise in his professional career to Director of Finance for a large healthcare company, and his outstanding volunteer efforts to install permaculture farms in under privileged communities around the world that garnered receipt of the President’s Volunteer Service Award every year since 2014 as evidence of his exemplary character and impeccable record since his separation.  The applicant is requesting the upgrade in an effort to remove the stain from his record.

After reviewing the service record, the DRB found no evidence to indicate the applicant was unaware of the Air Force policy of zero tolerance for illegal drug use.  The board was unable to find evidence of the recruiter’s misguidance.  The board determined the negative aspects of the applicant’s willful misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of his confession. The DRB was pleased to see the applicant has been successful since leaving the Air Force.  However, the board found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant any changes to the discharge.  

CONCLUSION:  The board found insufficient evidence of an inequity or impropriety that would warrant a change to the applicant’s discharge.  Therefore, the discharge received by the applicant was deemed to be appropriate and his request was not approved. 

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 16 Jun 20.  If desired, the applicant can request a list of the board members and their votes by writing to:  

Air Force Review Boards Agency
Attn: Discharge Review Board
3351 Celmers Lane
Joint Base Andrews, NAF Washington, MD 20762-6602  

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief (Applicant Only)