dvise applicant of the decision of the Board, and his right to submit an application to the AFBCMR 

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

550 C STREET WES'I', SUWE 40 
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78 150-4742 

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEI.  COUNCIL 
AIR FORCE DlSClIARGE REVIEW BOARD 
1535COMhlAND DR, EE WING,3RD FLOOR 
ANDREWS AFB, h1D 20762-7002 

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 

(EF-V2) 

Previous edition will be used 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

CASE NUMBER 

FD-2007-00113 

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board  (DRB), without  counsel, via video 
teleconference between Andrews AFB, Maryland and Robins AFB, Georgia on 13 June 2007. 

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: 

Exhibit #5: Applicant letter 
Exhibit #6: Character reference letters 

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  the  applicant  substantiates  an 
inequity or impropriety that would justify  a change of discharge. 

ISSUE: 

Issue 1.  Applicant contends that although a punitive discharge was authorized and he received a discharge in 
lieu of Court Martial, the discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and didn't  allow him the 
rehabilitation he deserved.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article  15s for wrongful use of 
marijuana and sexually assaulting an Airman, one Letter of Reprimand for dereliction of duty, and one 
Memorandum for Record for testing positive for marijuana a second time.  The Board concluded that the 
applicant's  misconduct was so egregious that additional rehabilitation was not appropriate.  The Board 
concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The 
characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate. 

Issue 2.  Applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the 
service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports. 
They found the seriousness of thc willful misconduct  offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty 
performance.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for 
this case. 

Issue 3.  Applicant asks the board to consider upgrade based on his post-service activities.  The DRB was 
pleased to see that the applicant was doing well, has a good job  and is active in his church.  However, the 
DRB determined that based on the documentation provided and the board hearing, they could find no 
inequity or impropriety in his discharge and as a result, the applicant's  post service activities did not offset 
his current characterization  of service. 

Issue 4.  Applicant opines that throughout his career, but specifically during his last reenlistment period, his 
chain of command's  arbitrary and capricious actions contributed to his misconduct and his subsequent 
discharge and characterization of service.  The DRB found no specific evidence to substantiate the 
applicant's  claims.  As such, they concluded the member's  characterization  of service was appropriate. 

Issue 5:  Applicant contends his family issues were not appropriately acknowledged and dealt with by his 
chain of command.  Although the DRB was sympathetic to the member's family losses, they noted that the 
losses had taken place four years prior to the misconduct and the member had sought and received 

counseling and depression medication from the base Mental Health Clinic.  In addition, based on the 
documents provided, the board found no reason to believe that the chain of command had not provided 
counseling andlor support to the member after his family losses, however, they agreed it was conceivable 
after four years that the chain of command might have lost their willingness to provide the level of support 
the member felt he needed.  Despite this, the board agreed that the member knew right from wrong and had 
other options available to him, (e.g., return to counseling with Mental Health, etc.), rather than choose to use 
his own "illegal"  means to self-medicatelcope.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the 
reasons which were the basis for this case. 

Issue 6:  Applicant states that he was "railroaded" and allegations against him, to include the Article 15 for 
assault, the dereliction of duty LOR, the violation of quarters, his invitations to smoke marijuana with 
subordinates and the second positive drug test were invalid or "lies".  Based on the documentation provided, 
the DRB is unable to substantiate the applicant's  claims; the board found the documentation to be creditable 
and the characterization of service to be appropriate. 

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 SSGT) 

1.  MATTER UNDER REVIEW:  Appl rec'd  a  UOTHC Disch fr USAF Keesler AFB, MS on 12 
Jan 01 UP AFI 36-3208, Chapter 4  (Triable by Court Martial).  Appeals  for 
Honorable Discharge. 

2.  BACKGROUND: 

a. DOB: 18 Jan 55. Enlmt Age: 25 11/12. Disch Age: 45 11/12. Educ: HS DIPL. 

AFQT: N/A.  A-46,  E-26,  G-41,  M-43. PAFSC: 2T171 - Vehicle Operations 
Craftsman.  DAS: 23 Aug  85. 

b.  Prior Sv:  (1) AFRes 5 Jan 81 -  12 Mar  81  (2 mos 08 das) (Inactive). 

(2) Enlisted as A1C 13 Mar 81 for 4 years.  Extended 30 Apr 
82 for 5 months.  Extended 7 Mar  85 for 7 months.  Reenlisted as SrA 30 Jun 86 
for 4 years.  Reenlisted as SrA 2 Apr 90 for 6 years.  Svd: 14 Yrs 11 Mos 08 Das, 
all AMS.  SrA: -  Unknown.  SSgt -  1 Aug  90.  APRs:  8,7,9,8,8,7REF, 9,9,9, 9, 9. 
EPRs: 4,4,4,4,4,4,5. 

3.  SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: 

a.  Reenlisted as SSgt 21 Feb 96 for 5 years. Svd: 04 Yrs 10 Mo 20 Das, all 

AMS . 

b.  Grade Status:  SrA -  19 Jan 00  (~rticle 15, 19 Jan 00) 

c.  Time Lost:  None. 

d.  Art  15's: 

(1) 19 Jan 00, Keesler AFB, MS -  Article 112a.  You did, 

within the ~ontinential United States on or about 25 Oct 
99, wrongfully use marijuana.  Reduction to SrA and 45 
days of extra duty.  (~ppeal/~enied) (No mitigation) 

(2) 06 Jan 97, Keesler AFB, MS  -  Ar$~-$~e-~?8,----Y1,u~~ 

,  , 

<,.. 

-.  -..-. 

' 

.<  - 
.> , 8 
. ' ' <  
, 
- 
- :  
, 
, 
." 

. , I ,   / 

,,I 

r 

.I, 

>

I 

,

 

 

+ ,
: 
1 

: 
, 

r - ~ * .

 

7 
, .  
, 
, +  

.[ 
, ' I  
,  , 
r :  
, = *  
, . _  
. 

,

 

, 

. % '

5 
,  I , '   l ,  
i 
,,,, ( , * )  
2 
< , ~ ,,',  ;.  : 

J 

/

I

 

 

,

 

.

,

I

 

A

*

< -  

>, 

I 

' 

i  r 

, '
' 

,,, . t 

.  : 
'  . f   : , $  
. 
, 
r : 
8  -. -  ,: 
, 
I  I  , ,I 
.  ,  , ,  
. 
'*  . 
.  '
' ., 
'  '.' 
, ,  - 
.  . 
*  , , 7  
< 
j  . 
j 
- 
. 
. , ..  ' 
11 % .
?'  , 
.r  ' L,  : < 
., : i 
d - , . 
,  . -  
. i 

' 

, > J  

  1 

I ,  

> .  

1 .  

. I  

A 

I

%, 

 

- I  

, ,  I 

, 
. 

+ 

I

.

, 

- 

, ,  

' 
* 
,  ' 1  
. 
.-..., 
  ' . 
., 
, 
, < .

 

8 

, -  . 
, 

I ,  

/ 

*

 

'
I 
, 

- 

_ <  

I 

, 

I

, 
 > .
.
 
., .  , 
.,' 
. 

' 

i 

I 

-fix cc 
. .  R~SE~~Q~RP~HEZJM 

F . ' ~ ~ Q T ~ ~ : J A  

, 
S9GJECT: iegai;i?&e\a  ~ ~ - ~ ~ $ . $ t - f ~ j & j ~ @ ~ ~ ~ ~  

jyr?Ljei: p.i:T~fgi  b y  ~ ~ ~ r i ; h d k k s i  

, 

Sanrb? Artmar11..  -. .,. . -. . -. . -. . . . . . . -. . -. . -. . -. . -. ., . . 
l < e ~ s [ ~ i ,  

.  . 

!'BY TRANS. 

' 

+FURPOSE: 

i ~ i

~ki.q"c&ued'for cttxbafge In I~GU a!  i;nirfjy >&~ui:- 
in2ldnl pursuant to ri!o  ~rovirite~ri of &FI IRbS1OR  Chapter;l;  I.$* w d lekjelly s1i5cit.d '  ' 
fgf  c;c$rhl $33' {fie  &fi~ri;l  ~brifl-h481W81 &b'?vefl:?fJd bkjb~fiv 
3nd'fok1s/arc1 it  D 
<&y&A), 

.  . 

 

' 

1 

.I 

_ 

AFB  hl S 
rwve  F B V ~ E L : ~ ~ . ~  

, - 

 

~ ~ I W R ~ ~ I

i I  %pfec~f>er 1999 $rid. 8 . IVlilp2d00, : I & ,   q u f i ~ d  

2.  BA@KCRO@@: 
ajt&,3ed[y  q&d'ir(at$jua.ra .as c\:ldsn$ecl  By:h$i  ~ r i n a  Sp&rn+ctsr  w'ir:$+t  t$f&d-@%iiive fSf 
It.!e ir:r:tah3iite  Qf panjuana  Gn 14 +!qy2000,  ths ;scai$ed.ribf&*d hts dodtiis nrr?er. 
x:l$th  tjlecgd'hkn on qus?rters by play!:@ sofib#iL  OK 6 JuW ,2@& 
tGrcirQf~t 23s c!':nai$rig&  2nd i.ere;;ctrorr GI, duty. 
pi&rrod  qrxe  :$e&ificatic17  e8cfi 
ib &  gpj38~iai ~ ~ : j f r - ~ ' ~ i + t $ a f  
0fi,;14 Ju!~ ~ $ O O .  4715~ 
The  E I  T%!.d:CG 
~
+
c~iimh&~ vii~tr? his  :yihtaiy  &fags8  cocins$i 
the' dccusB(f  guWlilt4  a  reqiies? for 
8  Ati$just 206G:  pI"+e 81 T RAidS)CC. 
discharg~. 1':  1!@?t,  of  trial  by mttrt*h~ifiirrl+b~~ 
'c,?jarac?&?iz$ the 
A1 ~ V ~ ~ J A .
-rc~rslipi;'s %ryEce 85 under #r~"er Th&  Wafi~raB!e &nbittoil?.  Xnb:i-~tcstnrnerld d&1-r7iai 
c:f t % $ h ~  S 8 r ~ k ~ ~ ~ r ~ b 3 t i ~ t ' t  
 
:: . 

a:ab  31  TRW!,CC  rsoarni~ieficf you  sppvhr; tl% 

r&fsi.f~& the r

3.  $A&$ 

ie&@B'i. 

,  . 

,  . 

>

 

~

.

i

 

+ 

a 

tl7  TRAPJ~C~;:: 

L ~ F I @ ~ ~ , T H ~ + A C C U S ' ~ D : ~  

---------- 

i tldufJd6 h n. tjit: bd;sWnent two .lfiriur ~o'ni&idal P ~ u ~ i ~ n l b F i  

a, ~ n i & r ~ ' i n n ? n ; - - - - - - - - -  

:IS 45,Yk$ts oftl cclnd  :s  sewips asRvc-yser ~nilslment. 'rhn? 
5 s ~ a n  an 22  F&t&qry  I ~196: t-jg.pit>utqfj Hctnb  duty ocp  -I  3 &$4rct.r 2 9B.r .:,,'w %I@ 8 
dt~,@!il)8~'-rei:orcff ~ v h ~ c l ?  
aotqhs~ {r5t?q  ?or q B r / j ~ , ~ , w  US$  and wiB $ 0 ~  ascaulti  arit4  +'j+tk$i 
of ,fapri~X3!%!' (fC3'' 
fRa:iAtP  Fares 
Hia.3w&rd$r~nd-~ec(lra~iortsrLi~dd~a. 
I 
2  at$. 'the' +w;y  Achi~y~n~t-YSf %&$I wi!IT  1  OLf3 ' YlB 
C m ~ 1 w t g M ~ l f ~ ; n  
l?rar1c;.n3l B&eaq%  .$rsrvice  f~Aedai tt78 'Aif  Fnrce Overserirs I.A?!g, T C ~ P  Rlfjbon. !!I&  Air 
:?.tr  F0r4$ tangwily Sw?iC@ P,vr"xnl Ritim~ ultth 
FSce O c s t ~ t ~ a s  $$o(t  TCIU~ Wibbofi: i h ~  
3  4Lc, !Re  hi7  fiurce  NCD~~r6feaaroftath~il1tn1y 
Gdoca~ir~. RiWrm, ihe  Srnsfl kr;ns 
E~FGI? h%ard U%63n, a:?4 ihe AI~Fifrca~f't*2idng:R&bnn: 342 %& :As  fnloih!\ng  fiverail 
Repcitk {:r;ust rccenl Tml!'  2  5, 5, tS  3. 5 .  5. 4, 4 
ra!its!~a.  on 111s Ed4Wri P ~ ~ o T s ? ~ G >  
' j : : , . f ; I ; ~ 3 ~ , 8 , 8 , 9 . U ~ j , ' , l , 7 , a f i d 8 .  

$,% .

 

, , 
r 
 

,

i 
\

 

,

 

.

I

2

b 

" 

--*-- 

-----4. 

/ -  A 

-,4. 
+,. 

v 
, . 
,  . 
a ,7 ,,*& 
. ::qy@i'. 
. ,.  ,  " > -  
, : l.- p 
- /  "/,i 
3 ,   : . 
, '  
+ ,,,", -  ,* 
i.I;":pb-;. 

:fir-:, , ,,,  ,. 
-. \ 7. + -  7 ,  
.  > 

.  ,"," 

"  :@&j$p20g@5j&; ;;& 
. 

' 
- 2   ' 

. - 

, 6 
r  " 

. 

. 

> 

> 

I 

. 

..Fb?k 
,,', 

'l: 

I

,

 

- 

,  : .  -.*, 
d; ,*.., 

, 

.*:"'- 

- 

'

/

 

, - 

W e d   M a y   0 2   2 0 0 7   0 8 : 4 8   I K O N  

W e d   M a y   0 2   2 0 0 7   0 8 : 4 8   T K O N  

W e d   May  0 2   2 0 0 7   0 8 : 5 4  I K O N  

W e d   M a y   0 2   2 0 0 7   0 8 : 5 4   I K O N