AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OFSERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

X	RECORD REVIEW

AFSNISSAN

ADDRESS  A".IDOR ORGANIZATIONOFCOUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY

X*+

X*+ X*+
X*+ X*+

A66.00

l ORDER APPOINTING nlE BOARD
2  APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'SRELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

02 Aug 2013	FD-2013-00305

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.

*Narrative Reason and Authority
+RE Code

TO:

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

FROM:

SECRETARY OFnu:AIR FORCE PEllSON1''EL COUNOL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE Rl!VIEW BOARD ISlS COMMAND  DR, EE WING,)RD FLOOR ANDREWS APB,MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00305	

GENERAL:	The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

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 request for the upgrade of the discharge, to change the reason and authority for discharge, and to change the reenlistment code is denied.

ISSUE:  Applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct -Drug Abuse

Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when he was young. The record  shows that the applicant received  an Article  15 for wrongfully  inhaling aerosol propellants  on diverse occ.asions.  The applicant admitted to the use.   The Board recognized the applicant was 18 years of age when the discharge took place.  However, the Board found no evidence to indicate that the applicant was immature, did not know right from wrong, or that in his six months of service was unaware of the Air Force policy of zero tolerance to drug use. The Board opined the applicant was the same age as the vast majority of first-term members who properly  adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct.   The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the 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