NAME O F  SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAI,) 

GRADE 

AFSNISSAN 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD 

I I 

MEMBER SITTING 

HON 

I 

GEN 

UOTHC 

I  OTHER 

I  DENY 

VOTE OF THE BOARD 

ISSUES  A94.06 
A93.02 

INDEX  NUMBER 

A67.70 

1  HEARING DATE 

/  CASENUMBER 

I 

I 

I 

EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO TRE BmRD 

I 

1 
2 
3 
4 

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

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE 

27 Oct 2005 
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S  DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATlONALE 

FD-2005-00078 

1  Case heard at Washington, D.C. 
1  Advise applicant of the decision of the Board. 

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request. 

*  = Secretarial Authority 
+ = RE Code Upgrade 

, 

SAFIMRBR 
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78 150-4742 

I 
I 

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL 
AIR FORCE UlSCllARCE REVICH  BOARD 
1535 COhlhl4ND I)K  EE HING. 3RU  FLOOR 
ANDREW~ AFB, ~ ~ ' 2 0 7 6 2 - 7 0 0 2  

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 

(EF-V2) 

Previous edition will be used 

-- 

- 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

I 

I 

CASE NUMBER 

FD-2005-00078 

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 appeared  and  testified  before  the  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB),  without  counsel,  at Andrews AFB  on  27  Oct 

e following witnesses also testified on the applicant's behalf  Mr. 
the applicant's  mother. 

the applicant's  father, and Ms.- 

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: 

Exhibit #6: Statement by applicant's mother 
Exhibit #7: Character reference email from Captain 
Exhibit #8: Summary of DRB cases and actions taken 
Exhibit #9: Secretary of the Navy Scholastic Achievement Award 
Exhibit # 10: 2 Award Certificates 
Exhibit # 1 1 : 2 Letters of appreciation, Department of the Navy 
Exhibit # 12: Psychiatric evaluation, Yale University 
Exhibit #13: 2 Character reference letters, high school English teacher and cross-country coach 
Exhibit #14: Letter from nursing school instructor 

Chaplain, USAFR 

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

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge, change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code are approved. 

The Board  finds no evidence of record  which substantiates an inequity or impropriety occurred  in the processing of the applicant's 
discharge  that  would justify  a  change  of  discharge.  However,  based  collectively upon  the  record,  the  evidence  and  testimony 
provided  by  applicant,  and  the  testimony  provided  by  the  applicant's  parents,  by  a  split  vote  the  majority  of  Board  members 
determined that the service characterization, reason for discharge, and RE Code warrant a change. 

ISSUES:  The record  reflects that  the  applicant  accepted  an  Under  Other  Than  Honorable  discharge  in  lieu  of a trial  by  Court 
Martial for wrongful use of drugs, namely amphetamines.  The applicant was randomly selected for a urine drug screen, the results 
which were positive  for amphetamines at  1669 ng/ml (DoD cutoff level for amphetamines  is 500 ng/ml).  The applicant admitted 
consuming a pill offered to her by an enlisted  individual  senior to her in rank and that she did not know the substance to be illegal 
at  the  time,  but,  instead  believed  that  it  was  a  "training  enhancer"  for  boosting  her  energy  for  participation  in  an  upcoming 
exercise.  The applicant's  mother contends that the applicant's  discharge was inequitable because  it was too harsh, referring to the 
record  of a series of discharges for drug abuse obtained from the "DoD  reading room,"  that resulted  in  less severe discharges,  i.e. 
general  under Honorable  conditions.  However, the  Board noted  that  the  aforementioned  discharge  actions  were  largely  due to 
marijuana  usage, a drug considered  less serious  in  nature than the one consumed by  the  applicant.  The applicant and  her father 
contend that  she should not be penalized  "for  the rest of her  life"  for a mistake she made when young by  entrusting the judgment 
of  a  noncommissioned  officer  who  offered  the  applicant  what  was  believed  by  the  applicant  to be  a  legal,  over-the-counter 
pharmaceutical.  The Board  collectively  considered  the  applicant's  age at the time  of her  offense,  her  assertion that  she did  not 
knowingly  consume  an illegal drug, the  likelihood  of the  "blind"  trust  she had  in  a  noncommissioned  officer  not to jeopardize 
either her health or Air Force career,  and her demonstrated  moral  and ethical character both prior to entering military  service and 
since her discharge, as corroborated through the testimony of the applicant's  parents and numerous  character letters, in deciding to 
offer her relief. 

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. 

However,  in  view  of the  foregoing  findings,  the  majority  of Board  members  concluded  that  the  overall  quality  of  applicant's 
service, with  consideration of the unique set of circumstances  surrounding her  consumption  of an unknown  medication, is  more 
accurately  reflected  by  an  Honorable  discharge.  Additionally,  the  applicant's  RE  code should  be  changed  and  the  reason  for 
discharge should be changed to Secretarial Authority under the provisions of Title 10, USC  1553. 

Attachment: 
Examiner's  Brief 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

AIR  FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 

ANDREWS AFB,  MD 

(Former AMN)  (HGH AMN) 

1.  MATTER UNDER REVIEW:  Appl rec'd  a UOTHC Disch fr Edwards AFB, CA on 4 Apr 00 
UP AFI 36-3208, Chapter 4  (Triable by Court Martial).  Appeals for Honorable 
Discharge. 

2.  BACKGROUND: 

a. DOB: 30 Sep 80.  Enlmt Age: 17 0/12.  Disch Age: 19 6/12. Educ: HS DIPL. 

AFQT: N / A .  A-98,  E-85,  G-99,  M-49. PAFSC: 4F031 -  Aeromedical Apprentice. 
DAS: 4 Jan 99. 

b.  Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 8 Oct 97 -  28 Jul 98 (9 months 21 days) (Inactive) . 

3.  SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: 

a.  Enlisted as AB  29 Jul 98 for 4 yrs. Svd: 1 Yrs 8 Mo 7 Das, all AMS 

b.  Grade Status:  AMN -  29 Jan 99 

c.  Time Lost:  None. 

d.  Art 15's:  None. 

e.  Additional: None. 

f.  CM:  None. 

g.  Record of SV: None. 

h.  Awards &  Decs:  AFTR. 

i.  Stmt of Sv:  TMS:  (2) Yrs  (5) Mos  (28) Das 

TAMS: (1) Yrs  (8) Mos  ( 7 )  Das 

4.  BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW:  Appln  (DD Fm 293) dtd 1 Dec 04. 

(Change Discharge to Honorable) 

ISSUES ATTACHED TO BRIEF. 

ATCH 
1. Applicant's Issues. 
2.  Petition and Congressional Support Letter for Modification of Administrative 
Discharge. 
3. Copy of Military  Personnel Record. 

Personal Account of Circumstances Leading to my Discharge from the Air Force 

On 28 July 1999 1 was ordered to present myself for a random drug screening. I was 
unconcerned as I have never even considered doing drugs or associated with habitual 
users. In addition, I had already been subjected to  many of these tests. 

Sometime in the beginning of August ( I don't  remember the actual date) my Non- 
commissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC) and my First Sergeant pulled me from an 
exercise ambulance crew during a training operation.  When they asked my to 
accompany them my only thought truly was that they had done random room checks 
and were now taking me to the barrack% for inspection.  Instead we ended up at Office 
of Security Investigations (OSI).  I was completely bewildered.  This was soon replaced 
by intense fear as I was led into the interrogation room and the questioning began after 
they had properly informed me of my rights.  Nonetheless, I decided that seeing that I 
hadn't  done anything I didn't  need a lawyer. 

I answered various questions about my social and health habits.  This led to the 
discussion of how I could possibly have ingested drugs.  Certainly, if I had taken drugs 
it was unknowingly and inadvertently.  I was temfied and frightened and could not 
comprehend how this could have happened.  I was ordered not to discuss my situation 
with anyone and, specifically, not to approach my commanding officer. 

I remained under investigation but no additional evidence of drug use could be found. 
The major points of the following months are as follows:  I contacted the Legal Defense 
Department as soon as possible but had to wait a few weeks for an appointment.  I 
eventually contacted the Mental Health Department as I was deeply depressed, very 
anxious, and my thoughts often turned to suicide.  The Capt. Psychologist did not have 
doctor patient confidentiality so I tried to be vague but it was rather obvious what my 
situation was.  I stopped seeing him after only a few visits as he plainly stated he 
thought I was guilty.  My First Sergeant referred me to a civilian maniage and family 

-  counselor.  I can't  remember his name but he was very helpful. 

I continued on with my work at the Flight Surgeon's  Office and tried to ignore the looks 
and whispers of my coworkers and patients.  One of the more humiliating experiences 
was having my name posted in email to the squadron on the promotions list and then 
having a second note going out saying it had been a mistake.  I suppose this really 
wouldn't have been too big a deal if everyone had not known I was scheduled for 
promotion, which then led to people asking why it was taken away. 

Sometime in October I was given a counseling sheet that detailed that I was no longer 
allowed to treat patients, real or even just  in exercises.  I wasn't  even allowed to put a 
bandaid on a minor cut.  I also was not allowed to drive the ambulance.  Since this was 

FDZ-S-  -7.9 

Page 2 

not explained to any of my co-workers and I was not allowed to explain, everyone 
began to treat me like a shirker. 

On 2 February 2000, I was at last officially charged with amphetamine use.  Please note 
that that there were 6 months between August when I was informed of the charges and 
February when I was actually charged.  Sometime later my First Sergeant transferred 
me to temporary duty in the Medical Group operations center where I was given 
secretarial duties. 

My court-martial date was set for the end of March and I had to make all preparations 
for potential imprisonment.  The day before my trial was scheduled to start I received 
my approved Chapter 4 Separation, eight devastating months after it all began.  I had 
chosen to request this separation out of fear.  I had been briefed on the consequences of 
a guilty verdict in a general court martial and I feared that I might spend 5 YEARS in 
prison for something I hadn't  done. 

I am writing this letter in support of my request for a review and upgrade of my military discharge 
status. My current standing is Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, which I believe to be unjust due to 
the circumstances surrounding my dismissal and its unfavorable impact on my future potential. 

Throughout high school I was a student athlete and very iwohred in community senice.  I never 
experimented with drugs or associated with habitual users.  I made the decision to enlist in the Air Force at 
the beginning of my senior year based on a sense of duty and a desire to serve.  Having volunteered on the 
local Navy base, I was aware of the challenges of the military lifestyle and the zero tolerance policy of the 
Armed Forces. 

I was completely dismayed when I was summoned to the Office of Security Iwestigations to 
account for the presence of drugs in my latest screening. I had always reported for landom screenings 
without fear, ffeeling instead a mild sense of irritation that I was selected yet again and was missing 
valuable work time.  I enjoyed my job immensely and would never have jeopardized my military career 
with something as foolish as drug use.  I absolutely would not knowingly ingest drugs.  In addition, had I 
ever felt what my medical training would suggest was the effects of an illegal substance I would have 
immediately reported my innocent ingestion.  However, in my case I felt no such effects and did not have 
an opportunity to neutralize the situation before it advanced to the charging and court-martial stage. 

I endured numerous injustices in the eight months leading up to my discharge.  The legal process 
itself was absurdly slow.  Fellow airmen in situations similar to mine were discharged with more favorable 
conditions in less time.  I was restricted in my work duties and had to suffer the rumors and srmbs of my 
co-workers.  When the stress began to affect my  mental health, I sought counseling where I was informed 
by my assigned psychologist that he believed I was guilty.  The pressure of k i n g  five years in prison for 
something I did not do was so great that I accepted a Chapter 4 Discharge in Lieu of Court-martial even 
though it included an Other that Honorable status. 

Since my dismissal from the Air Force, I have had diflidty  in applying for jabs and even 

volunteer opportunities due to the requirement of disclosure of military discharge status.  I am currently 
pursuing a degree in nursing and would be devastated if my goal of helping people could not be fulfilled 
due to my unpropitious expulsion 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE FLIGHT TEST CENTER IAFMC) 

EDWARDS AIR  FORCE BAfE,  CALIFORNIA 

1 

i 

MEMORANDUM FOR  95 

IN TURN 

FROM:  AFFTCIJA 

SUBJECT:  L e ~ a l  Review - Reauest for Discharge in Lieu of Trial bv Court- 

2 

0 

Martial Arnn 

1. Backpound:  On 28 Jul99 
Edwards AFB7s Drug Demand 
selection under the Air Forces drug abuse testing program, AFI 44- 1 20.  This 
sample was analyzed at the drug testing division, Brooks AFB. 

provided a urine sample to the 
am based upon her random 

r amphetamine.  A Medical Review Officer 
dical record and determined that there was no legal 
he positive test result.  Based on these facts, 
preferred one specification of wrongful use of 
on 2 Feb 00.  On 14 Mar 00, the wrongful use specification was 
requested a 

referred to a general court-martial. On 10 Mar 00, 
discharge in lieu of court-martial pursuant to AFI 36-3208, chap 4. 

2.  Analysis:  I have reviewed 
court-martial in accordance wi 
factually, procedurally, and legally sufficient to support separating the accused 
from the Air Force with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) 
discharge.  Under AFI 36-3208, chap 4, airmen may request discharge after 

request for discharge in lieu of 
, chap 4, and consider the case to be 

een preferred when 
eferred a charge ag 
. At a court-martial, 

authorized.  In this case, 
r the wrongful use of 

could receive a dishonorable 

discharge, 5 years confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and a 
reduction to airman basic (E-1). 

On 20 Apr 99, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) 
decided United States v. Campbell, 50 MJ 154 (CAAF 1999).  In overturning a 
urinalysis case, the court suggested that the government might have a burden to 

show that the individual would feel the effect of the drug.  Although this case is 
under reconsideration, and thus not binding precedent, several judges have 
dismissed cases when the govenment expert cannot conclusively say that the 
individual would have felt the effects.  All the experts consulted by the government 
ould necessarily have 
agree that they would not be able to say that 

ischarge in lieu of court-martial, however, would 

overnrnent 's case. 

3.  Discussion of Accused's Back~round: On 29 Jul98, the Accused joined the 
Air Force for 4 years.  On 4 Jan 99, she arrived here at Edwards AFB, California. 
The Accused is authorized to wear the Air Force Training Ribbon. 

4.  Discussion of Accused's Statement: The Accused acknowledged that military 
legal counsel was made available to her and she consulted with counsel.  The 
Accused has submitted a request for discharge in lieu of court-martial. 

5.  Characterization of Discharce:  If you determine that the Accused should be 
discharged, you must determine how to characterize the Accused's service during 
recommends that 
his current enlistment.  The Accused's commander, 
the Accused's  discharge be characterized as under other than honorable conditions. 
AFI 36-3208, para 4.2, states that discharges in lieu of court-martial should be 
under other than honorable conditions unless the accused is being tried by 
summary court-martial. Since the accused's case has been referred to a general 
court-martial and based on the serious nature of the Accused's misconduct, her 
service should be characterized as under other than honorable conditions. 

6.  95 ABW/CC Options:  As the Special Court-Martial Convening Authority in 
this case, you may: 

a.  Recommend that AFFTCICC disapprove the request for discharge in lieu of 

court-martial; or, 

b.  Recommend that AFFTCICC approve the request for discharge in lieu of 

court-martial and makea recommendation as to the type of separation. 

7.  AFFTCICC Options:  As the Separation Authority in this case, you may: 

a.  Disapprove the request for discharge in lieu of court-martial; or, 

b.  Approve the request for discharge in lieu of court-martial and determine the 

type of discharge to be issued. 

8.  Recommendation:  Based on the current unresolved legal issues, I recommend 
that the Accused's  request for hscharge in lieu of court-martial be accepted under 
AFI 36-3208, chap 4, and that the accused be discharged under other than 
honorable conditions.  If you concur, 95 ABWICC sign the letter located at Tab 1 
and AFFTCICC sign the letter located at Tab 2. 

Staff Judge Advocate 

Colonel, USAF