NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) 

GRADE 

AFSNlSSAN 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD 

I x l

 

MEMBER SITTING 

I 

I 

HON 

1 

GEN 

1  UOTHC 

I  OTHER 

I  DENY 

ISSUES  A01.13 

INDEX NUMBER 

A74.00 

HEARING DATE 

27 Feb 2004 

CASE NUMBER 

FD-2003-00505 

Case heard at Washington, D.C. 

1 
2 
3 
4 

ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD 
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 
LETTER OF NOTIFICATION 
BRlEF OF PERSONNEL FILE 
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD 
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF 
PERSONAL APPEARANCE 

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE 

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance withlwithout counsel, and the right to 
submit an application to the AFBCMR. 

1 u: 

SAFlMRBR 

RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 

I 

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 

SECRETARY OF TRE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COL'NCIL 
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 
1535 COMMAND DR.  EE WING, 3RD FLOOR 
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002 

I 
(EF-V2) 

Previous edition will be used 

I 

1 

I 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

CASE NUMBER 

~~2003-00505 

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

The  applicant  was  offered  a  personal  appearance  before  the  Discharge  Review  Board  but  declined  to 
exercise this right. 

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. 

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied. 

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an inequity 
or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge. 

Issues.  Applicant received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge pursuant to his 
request  to be  discharged in  lieu of trial  by  court martial.  Member was  accused of using marijuana and 
psilocybin mushrooms on divers occasions, distribution of marijuana, and introduction of marijuana with 
intent to distribute, all offenses occurring between  1 May  and  14 October 2001.  During the course of an 
investigation by  the  Air  Force  Office  of  Special  Investigations,  three  witness  statements  corroborated 
applicant's illegal drug use.  Additionally, applicant had  other misconduct consisting of a failed dormitory 
room inspection and dereliction of duty.  For these infractions he had three Letters of Reprimand.  Applicant 
now  comes  stating he  was  singled out  and  the  evidence against him  was  insufficient, but  he  requested 
discharge to avoid  further humiliation and save the Air Force resources.  The Board concluded member's 
misconduct was  a  particularly  serious  failure to  meet  Air  Force  standards and  an  extremely significant 
departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The Air Force's drug policy was well publicized 
and members were continually made aware that illegal drug use was not tolerated.  For the period of service 
under review, his misconduct was sufficient reason for receiving a UOTHC discharge.  The Board further 
notes that applicant voluntarily submitted his request for discharge in lieu of trial by  court martial, thus not 
attempting to  establish his  innocence or  present  any  extenuating or mitigating  factors.  In  doing  so  he 
acknowledged that under these circumstances his characterization of service could be  deemed under other 
than honorable conditions in accordance with discharge regulations, wherein airmen so discharged usually 
do have their service characterized as UOTHC.  The Board found no wrongful action by the Air Force, and 
could find no inequity or impropriety on which to base an upgrade to the discharge. 

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. 

In view of the foregoing findings the board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for 
upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed. 

Attachment: 
Examiner's Brief 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 

ANDREWS AFB,  MD 

(Former SRA) (HGH SRA) 

MISSING DOCUMENTS 

1.  MATTER UNDER REVIEW:  Appl rec'd  a UOTH Disch fr USAF 30 Sep 02 UP AFI 36- 
3208, Chapter 4  (Triable by Court Martial).  Appeals for Honorable Discharge. 

2.  BACKGROUND : 

a. DOB: 3 Oct 78.  Enlmt Age: 19 6/12.  Disch Age: 23 11/12. Educ: HS DIPL. 

AFQT: N/A.  A-95,  E-62,  G-66,  M-37. PAFSC: 2W051 -  Munitions Systems 
Journeyman. DAS: 5 Apr 00. 

b.  Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 28 Apr 98 -  11 Aug 98  (3 months 15 days) (Inactive). 

3.  SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: 

a.  Enlisted as Amn 12 Aug 98 for 4 yrs. Svd: 4 Yrs 1 Mo 19 Das, all AMS. 

b.  Grade Status:  SrA.- 12 Aug 01 
A1C -  12 Jun 99 

c.  Time Lost:  None. 

d.  Art 15's:  None. 

e.  Additional:  (Examiner's Note:  The following documents are missing from 

file, but are listed on the Legal Review). 

LOR, 24 JUN  02 -  Dereliction of duty. 
LOR, 26 OCT 01 -  Failed room inspections. 
LOR, 27 MAR 01 -  Dereliction of duty. 

f.  CM:  None. 

g.  Record of SV: 12 Aug 98 -  02 Aug 00  Spangdahlem AFB  5  (Initial) 

02 Aug 00 -  01 Aug 01  Spangdahlem AFB  5  (Annual) 

(Discharged from Hickam AFB) 

I I 

h.  Awards &  Decs:  AFAM, AFTR, AFEM, NDSM, AFLSAR, AFOUA. 

i.  Stmt of Sv:  TMS: (4) Yrs  ( 5 )  Mos  (3) Das 

TAMS:  (4) Yrs  (1) Mos  (19) Das 

4.  BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW:  Appln  (DD Fm 293) dtd 19 Oct 03. 

(Change Discharge to Honorable) 

ISSUES ATTACHED TO BREIF. 

ATCH 
1. Applicant's Issues. 
2. Letter of Evaluation. 
3. Letters of Appreciation (2) . 
4. Enlisted Performance Report. 
5. Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal. 
6. Enlisted Performance Report. 
7. Enlisted Promotion Information. 
8. Letter of Evaluation. 
9. Record of Individual Counseling. 
10. Enlisted Promotion Information. 
11. Character References(7). 

* '  

/ 

Attachment 1.  The narrative reason for my separation is improper because my record of 
performance shows that I was a good service member. 

As opposed to the description of my separation as described on my DD form 214, my 

military service reflected good service and merit.  Though what is recorded shows only negative 
characteristics, I have provided in documentation my history of service.  As a first term airman 
stationed at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, I gained reputable recognition for my work within 
my flight (Documentation I) as well as in my squadron (Documentation 2A and 2B).  Upon 
departure of my permanent change in station, I was rewarded with an Air Force achievement 
medal.  Stationed in Spangdahlem Air Base, I continued my stellar performance receiving a 
"firewall"  5 on my initial Enlisted Performance Report (Documentation 3) in August of 2000 as 
well as receiving an Air Force Expeditionary Medal (Documentation 4)  in December of 2000. 
The following year, I continued above and beyond my performance receiving another 5 on my 
annual Enlisted Performance Report (Documentation 5)  putting me in good standards for 
promotion to E-5 when eligible.  Prior to being under investigation, I did not receive any 
derogatory action for my service.  The highest level of discipline I received was not more than a 
letter of reprimand, though being "singled-outy' because of the situation.  While losing my 
security clearance in October of 2001 due to an investigation of my alleged involvement, I 
maintained my bearing and remained optimistic by achieving positive evaluations 
(Documentation 6A and dB)  and being selected of staff sergeant (Documentation 7)  despite 
being out of my specialty area for the rest of my tainted career.  In September of 2002,ll 
months after the alleged involvement, the Air Force decided to prefer charges and pursue to 
court-martial me after the fact my active duty and foreign tour of duty expired in August of 2002 
without formal notification of eligibility for reenlistment or involuntary extension.  Regardless of 
the situation I faced and the apathy of my flight towards my futue, there were those who spoke 
on my behalf and about my character (Documentation 8A - 8E). 

Knowing the consequences as advised to me by my council to opt out of court-martial, 

the result reflects a stigma on the narrative reason for my separation.  It is identified by the 
separation code of JKK that I have used drugs and failed rehabilitation provided by the Air 
Force.  In essence it states that the reason for my separation was for misconduct as stated by the 
Spangdahlem Legal office for violation of the UCMJ, which was solely based on one testimony 
that was not evidentiary.  Documentation I have provided clearly describes a positive completion 
of my full active tenn of service. 

Though the case against me was not strong enough to resolve a conviction but instead 

risked an acquittal, I chose to be discharged to prevent further humiliation on myself and 
sacrificed my career to save the Air Force their resources rather than waste any more than what 
reconsider the 
was already 
narrative reason for my separation and my eligibility to reenter in the armed forces for I have the 
desire to serve and continue my career in the United States Air Force. 

on my particular case.  I humbly request the board to 

DEPARTMENT  OF THE AIR FORCE 

5 2 ~  FIGHTER WING  (USAFE) 

. - 

,

I

 

MEMORANDUM FOR 52 FWICC 

FROM  52 FWIJA 

, 

. 

SUBJECT: 

e in Lieu of Court-Martial, S 

2d Equipment Maintenance Squadron 

I

-

 

? 

* 

,

'

 

1.  FACTS:  SrA 
112% Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  Specifically, he is accused of divers use of 
rnkijuaria, divers use of mushrooms containing psilocybin, distribution of marijuana and 
introduction of marijuana with the intent to distribute.  All of these offenses occurred between 1 

as been charged with four specifications of violating Article 

. -  . .  ,  May 2001 and 14 October 2001. 

>

, 

,

 

a. The case against S 
previous written statements, and stipulation of fact exhibits, of three other airmen (AB 

was initially developed based on evidence fkom the 

d AB-~O 

had been involved with the drug abuse in 

immunity, it became clear that the status of the evidence was not ne 

en were tried by court-martial, and subsequently granted 

02) denied having any memory of any 
ot recall any specific details of hi 
only available evidence against S 

d not be able to 

of the charged offenses. 

b.  As the facts have developed, it is now clear that if S 
its determination would come down to the to the testimo 

testimony of another convicted drug abuser.  I should also note that AB 
now the sole prosecution witness, was also convicted of fraudulent enlistment 

for lying on his enlistment papers regarding pre-service drug use.  This fkaudulent 
enlistment conviction would likely be used by the defense to further undermine the 
credibility of 

c.  S 
Letters of Reprimand as decribed in ~aj-recommendation 

as some prior history of misconduct.  He has received three previous 
letter (Atch 1). 

2.  a- 5 Septeinber 2002, M 
against SrA Lacara.  The charge sheet is included as an attachment. 

Commander, 52 EMS, preferred charges 

3.  LAW:  As the Special Court-Martial Convening Authority, AFI 36-3208, Chapter 4 provides 
you with two options: 

a.  Recommend that 3AF/CC approve S ~ A  - e e t  
in lieu of trial by court-martial; or 

and that he be discharged 

I 

b.  Disapprove SrA Y ( C e q u e s t   and return it to 52 EMSICC.  The court-martial 
would then continue to proceed to trial. 

4.  RECOMMENDATION:  Given the change in the posture of this case, and the evidentiary 
difficulties we now face, I believe an acquittal is more than likely.  Therefore, I recommend you 
forward sr-equest 
recommendation that it be approved. 

for discharge in lieu of court-martial to 3 AF/CC with a 

Attachments: 
1.  52 EMSICC Recommendation Letter 
2.  Charge Sheet