AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD 

............................... 

PERSONAL APPEARANCE 

............... 

SSGT 

RECORD REVIEW 

L.............. 

ADDRESS AND O R  ORC;rZKIL\llOh  O F  COL KFI;I. 

- 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

i 

1 

..................................... 

I .................................... ! 

1\\1  1  \  A94.53 
A94.05 

I 

I \ D ~ \  w\turn  A9 4.07 

EMIlBWS SUBMIITEDTO THE 80.4R.D 
1  I  OKDLR APPOIY TIN(,  l llC  ROAlDITIONAL EXIIIHI'VS  SUBMI~~TI:I) A.I..I.IMIL ot: 

- 

1  13 Apr 2006 

I  F D - ~ O U S - O U ~ ~ S  

I 

i 

C'acc heard at Washington, D.C. 

1  Aiirisc rppliciint of  the decisio~l of  the Board and the right to submit an application  to the AFBCMK 

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

1 

1 0  

INDORSEMkNC 

- - . 

TTHO\I 

-- 

DATE:  411412006 

--  - 

- 

SE<-RET.ARY OF THE AIH POKC).: PhKSORRt.1. COVNCII 
,\In  FORCE DlSCHAHGt RF.YLE\\  BOARD 
1535 COM%lhSD DR  EE WING. 3RI)  YI.OOH 
ANDRBWS AFB. MU 20762-IOU2 

APIIQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 

(EF-V?) 

Previous rdl~ion will be uscd 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

CASE NUMBER 

FD-2005-00445 

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

The  applicant  appeared  and  testified  before  the  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB),  without  counsel,  at 
Andrews AFB, MD, on 13 Apr 2006. 

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: 

Exhibit #5: Applicant's  Biography 
Exhibit #6: Eight Letters and Certificates of Appreciation 
Exhibit #7: Eight Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) 

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

FJNDINGS:  The discharge is upgraded to general. 

The  Board  finds  that  neither  the  evidence  of  record  nor  that  provided  by  applicant  substantiates  an 
impropriety  that  would  justify  a  change  of  discharge.  However,  based  upon  the  record  and  evidence 
provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's characterization of discharge inequitable. 

ISSUE:  Applicant received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge (Discharge in Lieu of 
Court Martial). 

Issue 1.  Applicant contends an upgrade will better his life as well as his family's  quality of life so he can 
better his employment to continue his role as a responsible citizen and community role model.  The Board 
was sympathetic to the impact that the discharge characterization was having on the applicant, but this is not 
a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade. 

Issue 2.  Applicant contends that the discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and did not tmly 
reflect his eight years of outstanding service, hard work, and commitment. The records indicated the 
applicant tested positive for the wrongful use of marijuana on two urinalysis tests from the AF Drug Testing 
Lab at Brooks AFB, TX, and that the applicant, through his civilian defense counsel, requested discharge in 
lieu of trial by court-martial.  The DRB noted that, although the applicant's misconduct was serious, it was 
not aggravated.  He had been an NCO for only eight months and, had he been a senior airman, the matter 
would likely have resulted in non-judicial punishment with a subsequent general discharge characterization. 
The DRB also noted that there is no evidence that he used drugs on duty, used with other active service 
members, or distributed drugs to anyone, that this case involves two low-level marijuana usages, and that the 
lab report indicated the concentration of drugs in applicant's system on both occasions was just  above DoD 
cutoff for drug testing. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his 
performance reports, letters of recommendation, awards and decorations, and other accomplishments over 
his eight years of service, and opined that a UOTHC discharge characterization did not accurately reflect his 
overall service.  The DRB felt a general discharge characterization was more appropriate in that applicant's 
service had been honest and faithful, but that his wrongful use of marijuana outweighed the positive aspects 
of applicant's military record thus not warranting an upgrade to an honorable 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. 

However,  in  view  of  the  foregoing  findings,  the  Board  further  concludes  that  the  overall  quality  of 
applicant's  service is more accurately reflected  by  a discharge Under Honorable Conditions (General). The 
applicant's characterization should be changed to General 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 SSGT)  (HGH SSGT) 

1.  MATTER UNDER REVIEW:  Appl rec'd  a UOTH Disch fr USAF Scott AFB, IL on 17 Sep 
03 UP AFI 36-3208, Chapter 4, para 4.3 (Discharge in Lieu of Court Martial). 
Appeals for Honorable Discharge. 

2.  BACKGROUND: 

a. DOB: 29 Jun 77.  Enlmt Age: 17 9/12.  Disch Age: 26 2/12. Educ: HS DIPL 

AFQT: N/A.  A-59,  E-62,  G-62,  M-37. PAFSC: 3M071 -  Services Craftsman. 
DAS: 9 Nov 01. 

b.  Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 31 Mar 95 -  15 Aug 95 (4 months 15 days) (Inactive). 

(2) Enlisted as AB 16 Aug  95 for 4 yrs.  Svd: 3 yrs 9 months 
4 days, all AMS.  AMN -  16 Feb 96.  A1C -  16 Dec 96.  SrA -  3 Sep 98.  EPRs: 4, 
2 (REF) ,  4. 

ART15:(1) 24 Nov 97, Whiteman AFB, MO -  Article 121.  You, did, on 

divers occasions, on or between 22 Sep and 25 Sep 97, 
stole meals from the Ozark Inn Dining Facility, military 
property, of a value under $100.00,  Article 107.  You, did, 
on or about 22 Sep and 23 Sep 97, with intent to deceive, 
sign an official record, to wit: AF Form 1339, Meal Card 
Form, which was false in the signing for meals on a meal card 
form, that you were no longer entitled to and was then known 
by the said to be false.  Suspended reduction to Airman. 
Forty five days extra duty.  (No appeal)  (No mitigation). 

3.  SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: 

a.  Reenlisted as SrA 21 May 99 for 6 yrs. Svd: 04 Yrs 03 Mo 26 Das, all 

AMS . 

b.  Grade Status:  SSgt -  01 Nov 01 

c.  Time Lost:  None 

d.  Art 15's:  None. 

e.  Additional: None. 

f.  CM:  none. 

g.  Record of SV: 04 Sep 98 -  17 Aug 99  Whiteman AFB  5  (CRO) 

18 Aug 99 -  17 Aug 00  Whiteman AFB  5  (Annual) 

18 Aug 00 -  17 Aug 01  Whiteman AFB  4  (Annual) 
18 Aug 01 -  17 Aug 02  Klein Brogel AB  5  (Annual) 

h.  Awards &  Decs:  AFAM W/1  OLC, SAEMR W/1 SS, AFEM W/1 SS, NDSM W/1 SS, 

AFTR, AFLSAR W/1 OLC, NCOPMER, AFOUA W/1 OLC, AFGCM. 

i.  Stmt of Sv:  TMS:  (08) Yrs  (05) Mos  (16) Das 
TAMS:  (08) Yrs (01) Mos  (02) Das 

4.  BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW:  Appln  (DD Fm 293) dtd 14 Nov 05. 

(Change Discharge to Honorable) 

Issue 1:  My discharge does not truely  (sic) reflect my  8  years of 

outstanding service, hard work and commitment.  An upgrade to Honorable will 
better my life as well as my families quality of  life so that I may.better my 
employment to continue my role as a responible (sic) citizen and community role 
model. 

ATCH 
None. 

I 
I 

MEMORANDUM FOR 52 FW/CC 

FROM:  52 FW/JA 

...................... 

SUBJECT:. .Requ.est for .D.ischarge  in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial - SSgt/ . ....................., 

v 

L .................... 

............ 

52d Munitions Support Squadron 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  The 52d Munitions 

................ 

/is charged with two specifications of wrongful use of marijuana in violation of 
............ Support Squadron 

1.  ssgt 
Article i f i < - ~ i f o r m  
commander, Lt Col/ ................ 1 preferred the charges against SSgt / ............ /on 2 Jun 03, 
recommending a special court martial.  You referred the case 
On 16 Jun 03, through his civilian defense counsel, SSgt/ 
trial by court-martial pursuant to AFI 36-3208, Chapter q-@iija%abh 4.3.  His squadron 
commander recommends approval.  We concur with Lt Col / .......... /recornmendation. 

to a special court martial 5 Jun 03. 
/requested discharge in lieu of 

........... 

2.  OPTIONS: The request for discharge case file is legally sufficient.  The General Court- 
Martial Convening Authority is the approval authority.  As the Special Court-Martial Convening 
Authority, you have the authority to deny the request or forward to 3 AFICC recommending 
approval. 

3.  STANDARDS FOR SERVICE CHARACTERIZATIOIY; An individual who submits a 
request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial normally receives a discharge with a service 
characterization of under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). A UOTHC discharge is 
appropriate when the conduct of an ainnan constitutes a significant departure from the conduct 
expected of airmen.  An  under honorable conditions (general) discharge is appropriate when the 
member's service has been honest and faithful, but significant negative aspects of the individual's 
conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record. 
An honorable discharge may be given only if the member's record has been so meritorious that 
any other service characterization would be inappropriate. 

4.  SERVICE CHARACTERIZATION IN THIS CASE:  Considering the seriousness of the 
alleged offenses, if the request is approved, I recommend a service characterization of UOTHC. 

5.  ANALYSIS: I recommend approval of the request.  Considering the facts and circumstances 
of this particular case, it is in the best interest of the Air Force to approve the request for 
discharge in lieu of court-martial for the following reasons: 

I 

i 

a  First, the primary evidence against SSgt / 

/is the results of two urinalysis tests 
from the Air Force Drug Testing Lab at Brooks ~ i ; ' ~ o r c e - ~ & e ,  Texas.  Through the discovery 
process, the defense has requested and received two lengthy documents detailing concerns at the 
Brooks lab.  These documents consist of a commander directed investigation focusing on 
personnel problems at the lab and an unfinished Air Force Audit Agency report examining 

........... > 

I 

, 
............. 
sample-testing problems at the lab.  These documents cover the period of time SSgtj 
urine samples were tested at the lab. 

.............. 

b.  Second, the drug usage at issue in this case likely occurred during August, September 

.or October 2002.  For a variety of reasons, trial has been delayed several times.  Most recently 
the military judge set a trial date of 15 .......... 
conclude this matter and remove SSgtl........... 
makes his departure from the unit a certainty.  The result of the court is, of course, unpredictable. 

Sqtembcr.  The discharge is an expeditious way to 

lfiom the squadron.  Likewise, the discharge 

.............. 

c.  Third, while SSgt 

$sconduct  was serious, it was not aggravated.  Had he 

been a senior airman, as opposd t6 i staff sergeant, the matter would likely have resulted in 
non-judicial punishment.  There is no evidence that he used drugs on duty, used with other active 
duty members, or distributed drugs to anyone.  Rather, this case involves two , low-level 
marijuana usages.  The lab report indicates the concentration of drugs in SSgt L ............. ;  system 
on both occasions was low, just above the DoD cutoff for drug testing. 

............. 

d.  Lastly, the UOTHC providgeffective general deterrence against similar misconduct 

in the squadron.  The fact that SSgtj 
service with a UOTHC characterizati~ii~ds a message to others in the unit who contemplate 
using drugs, that drug abuse canies serious and long lasting negatiire repercussions. 

!is losing his Air Force career and leaving the 

6. JUCOMMENDATJON: Sign the proposed memorandum approving SSgtj ............., 
request for discharge in lieu of court-martial. 

, .............. 

................................................... 

Staff Judge Advocate