AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

 

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (1.AST, FIRST MIDDLE INtITAL)

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

 

 

GRADE | AFSN/SSAN

AIC
4—

X RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

VOTEOF THE BOARD =
MEMBERS SITTING HON | GEN T orn OTHER | DENY
— - —“y
7 x
_~ { x
| — |
xX
ds 1- hes
x
te the seis —— faa x
L_ . 4 | a
ISSUES INDEX NUMBER EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
A93.17  A94.53 A66.00 A67.70 1] ORDFR APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
|
3 | LETTER OF NOTIFICATION _|
| HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER 4 | BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
3 JUN 03 FD2002-0365 COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
"ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
_
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING ‘|
APPLICANT'S ISSUR AND THE BOARD’ S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.
—|

 

 

REMARKS

Case heard at Scott AFB, Minois.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

—____

 

 

 

 

 

 

INDORSEMENT { DATE: 3 JUN 03
TO: FROM:
SAF/MIBR SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
550 € STREET WEST, SUITE 40 AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3°” FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used.
CASE NUMBER

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE | b:9992-0365

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

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.
FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge to Honorable is denied.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record or that provided by the applicant substantiates an
inequity or impropriety that would justify upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUES: The applicant requested and received a discharge with an Under Other Than Honorable (UOTH)
Discharge in lieu of Court Martial for Drug (Cocaine) Abuse/Use. The applicant requested that his
discharge be upgraded, citing he “did the honorable thing and turned [himself] in to Social Actions at
Wright-Patterson AFB for assistance in a drug problem [he] had.” The applicant also cited the assistance he
provided to the AFOSI and civilian police authorities into further investigation into the drug problem in the
community, which resulted in the successful arrest of other drug abusers/users in the military and civilian
communities. The DRB noted the applicant also has a record of minor disciplinary infractions, but opines it
is the applicant’s positive urinalysis for the metabolites of cocaine, which resulted in his discharge. The
DRB noted no causal or mitigating issues, which would warrant a change in the reason and characterization
of his military service.

CONCLUSIONS: 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 that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief
FD2002-0365
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ANDREWS AFB, MD

(Former A1lC) (HGH SRA)

1. MATTER UNDER REVIEW: Appl rec’d a UOTH Disch fr USAF 23 Feb 90 UP AFR 39-10,
Chapter 4 (Discharge in Lieu of Court Martial). Appeals for Honorable Discharge.

2. BACKGROUND:

a. DOB: 8 Apr 65. Enlmt Age: 20 4/12. Disch Age: 24 10/12. Educ: HS DIPL.
AFOT: N/A. A-56, E-62, G-70, M-56. PAFSC: 90650 - Medical Administration
Specialist. DAS: 11 Jun 86.

b. Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 27 Aug 85 ~- 24 Feb 86 (5 months 29 days) (Inactive).
3. SERVICE UNDER REVIEW:
a. Enlisted as AB 25 Feb 86 for 4 yrs. Svd: 4 Yrs 0 Mos O Das, all AMS.

b. Grade Status: A1C - 29 Aug 89 (Article 15, 29 Aug 89)
SrA - 25 Feb 89
Alc - 25 Feb 87
Amn - 25 Aug 86

c. Time Lost: None.

d. Art 15's: (1) 29 Aug 89, Wright Patterson AFB, OH - Article 91. In
that you, having received a lawful order from Sqt ----,
a noncommissioned officer, then known by you to be a
noncommissioned officer, not to go to the dining hall,
an order which it was your duty to obey, did, on or
about 4 Aug 89, willfully disobey the same. Article
86. Further, you, did, on or about 10 Aug 89, without
authority, absent yourself from your place of duty at
which you were supposed to be. Reduction to Al1C.,
(No appeal) (No mitigation)

e. Additional: 10 AUG 89 - Positive for Commander directed urinalysis.
12 JUN 89 - Dishonored check.
18 MAY 89 - Dishonored check.
LOR, 18 MAY 89 - Failure to go.
VBC, 6 FEB 89 - Failure to obey an order from an NCO and
leaving duty section with require work
unaccomplished.

£. CM: None.

g. Record of SV: 25 Feb 86 - 24 Feb 87 Wright Patterson AFB 9 (Annual)
25 Feb 87 - 25 Feb 87 Wright Patterson AFB 9 (Annual)
FD2002-0365

25 Feb 88 - 25 Feb 87 Wright Patterson AFB 8 (Annual)

(Discharged from Wright Patterson AFB)

h. Awards & Decs: AFGCM, AFTR.

i. Stmt of Sv: TMS: (4) Yrs (5) Mos (28) Das
TAMS: (4) Yrs (0) Mos (0) Das

4. BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW: Appin (DD Fm 293) dtd 21 Aug 02.
(Change Discharge to Honorable)

Issue 1: Request discharge be upgraded to Honorable since I did the
honorable thing and turned myself into Social Actions at Wright-Patterson AFB
for assistance in a drug problem I had. I hnorably (sic) assisted the AFOSI
into further investigation into the drug problem in the community. I received
an Air Force Good Conduct Medal and was very proud to serve my contry (sic).
All I ask for is your consideration to upgrade discharge from other than

honorable to Honorable.

ATCH
None.

O2DECO02/ia
7 . © @ f2c02- 0365

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS 2750TH AIR BASE WING (AFLC) ~~ .
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OMIO 45433-5000

 

REPLY To

ATTN oF TAM . _ 15 February 1990

“Request for Discharge in Lieu of Court-Martial, A1C
FR285-74-8269

To:

ce Fg

1. PRELIMINARY MATTERS: On 5 February 1990, Lt Col
Medical Squadron Section Commander, USAF Medicai venver,

WPAFB, Ohio, preferred one charge against A1C
for the Wrongful use of cocaine at or near Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base, Ohio, between 25 Oct 1989 and 1 Nov 1989, in

violation of Article 112a of the UCM. Lt ji
recommended trial by general court-martial. On & February
1990, AIC waived hig right to an Article 32 investigation

and submitted a request for discharge in lieu of court-martial
pursuant to AFR 39-10, Chapter 4.

2. FACTS: The evidence supporting the charge consists of the
results of a consent urinalysis taken on 1 November 1989; the
results were positive for cocaine. In July 1989, AlC
identified himself to Social Actions as a user of crack cocaine
and went through a program of drug rehabilitation. He began
working with the OSI in August 1989 as an informant. He worked
with the OSI and the Springfield, Ohio, Police Department
targeting crack dealers in Springfield. His efforts resulted
in the arrest of two alleged dealers in October. On 12
October, these two people,who had been arrested subsequently,

gave the OSI information that A1C had on several
occasions smoked crack cocaine with them and, in fact, had

   
 
  

smoked crack cocaine within the past seventy-two hours. Later,
on 13 October 1989, A1C was interviewed by the OST and
Further, he

_ advised of these allegations, and he denied them.
signed an Air Force Form 1364 consenting to a urinalysis test.
Hie unit did not arrange for his urinalysig until 1 November
1989; on that date, he submitted an urine sample for testing.
That specimen was found to be positive for cocaine with a\.level

of 17120 ng/ml.

3. UNIT COMMANDER’S RECOMMENDATION: The unit commander
recommends approval of the request. As reasons, she states
that approving the request for discharge would accomplish the
Same end result as a court-martial and would expedite the legal
proceedings, that morale would not be adversely affected
because of the characterization of the discharge, and that Al1C
would lose certain military benefits because of the

charact#®rization of the discharge.

SEB fS— compat STRENGTH THROUGH LOGISTICS

 

NOISS3SSOd SLI NI GYO0D79 ¥ WOW ‘SINOT “LS ‘DWM VA AG QV AdOD
@ . @ PR20g2-O SES

4. LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: The proposed action meets all the
criteria of AFR 39-10, Chapter 4, and is legally sufficient.

No errors or irregularities were noted.

5S. LEGAL" OPINION AS TO SERVICE CHARACTERIZATION: The factors
_that may be used for guidance in determining the character of

" “discharge are set forth in AFR 39-10, paras 1-16, 1-17 and
1-18. However, para 4-2 states the service of airmen
discharged under this provision will customarily be
characterized as under other’ than’ honorable conditions. The
unit commander recommends an under other than honorable
conditions discharge if the request is approved.

6. DISCUSSION: The evidence supports the conclusion that Al1C
wrongfully used cocaine between 26 October 1989 and 1 ©
November 1989. However, there was a delay between A1C
voluntary consent to the urinalyeie and the actual taking of
the urine sample on 1 November 1989, Filling in this gap in
time is somewhat confusing. Instead of following up on the
urinalysis after obtaining the congent, the OSI case agent

involved simply told: ‘to return to his unit. The agent
then notified the unit that had consented to a
urinalysis. The unit did not arrange for to submit the

specimen right away; instead, it was decided that, since

had already agreed with his commander to provide weekly
‘specimens somehow as part of his rehabilitation, they would
wait until it was time for him to submit a specimen under that
arrangement. Even though was providing weekly specimens,
he apparently was no longer in the formal Social Aationg
rehabilitation program. Before submitting the sample in
question, AlC wag given a letter directing him to report
to the urinalysis lab for a commander-directed urinalysis.

If a urinalysis is provided as part of a formal Social Actions
rehabilitation program, then the result cannot be used in a
court-martial. The same is true /for a commander-directed
urinalysis. The evidence here if not clear; however, there are
good arguments to ba made that Ahis urinalysis result would not
admissible in a trialy Ther ig an argument that, since more
than two weeks went by before he submitted the specimen,

could have believed that this urinalysis wag part of his
“rehabilitation agreement” with his commander and therefore
protected in the same way as a urinalysis submitted as part of
a formal rehabilitation program would be. Furthermore, there
is an argument to be made that the consent was not truly
voluntary; rather, it was an acquiesgeence to the perceived
power of the OSI and the commander. I do not believe these
problems would ultimately be dispositive to the oase; however,
I do believe the issues are gerpious enough to warrant avoiding
the court-martial when we can achieve virtually the same result

 
 

 

-NOISS3SSOa SLI NI QUOD7Y ¥ WOUd ‘SING LS ‘OW ¥A Ad F0VW AdOOD
“ . .
| a

eo | (@ e222. 2365

with this discharge. Also, hasia 25 Feb 1989 DOS; if we
hold him past his DOS for the court-martial (which we can do)
and the court- martial charge is dismissed for whatever reason,
then he would receive an honorable discharge. Furthermore, Alc
did provide information and assistance to the OSI which

tea to the arrest of drug dealers in Springfield. Therefore, I

_ recommend that you approve AlC request for discharge in
lieu of court-martial and that his. seryice be characterized ag

other than honorable.

7. OPTIONS: As the general* court-martial convening authority
you may; Be

a. Approve the request for discharge in lieu of trial by
court-martial and direct an honorable, general or under other
than honorable conditions discharge; or

b. Disapprove the request for discharge in lieu of trial
by court-martial. The case could then proceed to trial by

court-martial. -

8. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request for discharge in lieu
of trial by court-martial and direct that AIC Crane be
discharged with an under other than honorable conditions

discharge,

Assistant Staff Jidge Advocate

I concur.

Lieutenant Colonel, USAF
Staff Judge Advocate

 

 

NOISSASSOd SLI NI G¥ODTu ¥ Wows ‘SINOT LS ‘OMI VA AG aqVIW AdOD
f | eS | — @ Fb 2002-0 BES

f CHARGE SHEET

I. PERSONAL DATA

  

    
 

3. GRADE OR RANK|4. PAY GRADE
A =

3 UNITORURGANIZATION . 6. CURRENT SERVICE
USAF Medical Center. |

Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 25 Feb 86

7. PAY PER MONTH | 9, DATE(S) IMPOSED

 
  
   
 

     

$925.50 N/A

  
   

. It, CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS
10. GHARGE:: “VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ, ARTICLE 1]9q

SPECIFICATION: In that AIRMAN FIRST CLASS United States Air
Force Medical Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, did, at or near Wright-Patterson ¢
Air Force Base, Ohio, from on or about 25 October 1989 to on or about 1 November 1989,
wrongfully use cocaine.

til, PREFERRAL
11a, NAME OF ACCUSER (Last, First, MI) b, GRADE | c. ORGANIZATION OF ACCUSER
Lt Col USAF Medical Center

d. SIGNATURE OF ACCUSER *. “Ss AK IO

AFFIDAVIT: Before me, the undersigned, authorized by law to administer oaths in cases of this character, personally appeared the

 

 

above named accuser this __3th_ day of February ,19 90 , and signed the foregoing charges and specifications
under oath that he/she is a person subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and that he/she either has personal knowledge of
or has investigated the matters set forth therein and that the sarne are tfue to the hest of his/her knowledge and belief. .
{
2750 ABW/JA
Typed Name of Officer - Organization of Officer
Captain Judge Advocate

Official Capacity to Administer Oath
(See R.C.M, 307{(b)—must be commissioned officer)

 

“ ea Pes PS cmt a PPP FS
a FORM
i DDE, ane 458 EDITION OF OCT 69 15 OBSOLETE.

ie fee ae eAtebeas nes ane 9 a lnc RT