Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2008-00305
Original file (FD-2008-00305.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

 
 

    

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN

 
 

 

 

TYPE GEN PERSONAL APPEARANCE RECORD REVIEW

1 NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEMBER SITTING HON GEN UOTHC OTHER DENY
Ke
XK*+
X*t
KH
MEL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

= a 7 rs : ome s oF 7 RT m
A94.06 INDEX NUMBER AG6.00 sae TIBITS SUBMITED, 10 THE BOARD: Woman
A92.35 1 |ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
A92,21 2 [APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 |LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 | BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL’ RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING
HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER
16 Apr 2010 FD-2008-00305
Case heard in Washington, D.C.
Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

 

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

*Reason and Authority
+Reenlistment Code

 

SAF/MRBR SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
= AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR

RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

 

 

 

AFIWQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous
CASE NUMBER

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD-2008-00305

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, via video
teleconference between Andrews AFB Maryland and Robins AFB Georgia on April 16, 2010. (The
following witness also testified on the applicant’s behalf: Mr Jimmy Jordan (Step-Father).

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:
Exhibit 5: Applicant’s Contentions
Exhibit 6: Character Reference
Exhibit 7: Award

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

FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge, change of reason and authority for discharge,
and change of reenlistment code.

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 discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and based on one isolated
incident after 43 months of service. Applicant also expressed his desire to have his discharge upgraded so
that he may be eligible to reenlist into the armed forces. The records indicated the applicant received an
Under Honorable Conditions (General) Discharge from the United States Air Force Reserve for Commission
of a Serious Offense, Drug Abuse. The applicant provided evidence of his contention that he “was never a
drug abuser”. The DRB found the applicant to be very credible and believes that if the applicant had
submitted a request to his commander that he met all seven of the retention criterion as a basis for retaining
him, particularly in light of his outstanding performance, he may have had a favorable outcome. The DRB
cannot grant the relief requested, as it is not within the purview of the Board to grant an upgrade based on
clemency. Although the DRB cannot grant the relief requested, the DRB strongly urges the applicant to
submit his request to the Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR) to determine whether his records
should be corrected.

Issue 2. The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well, continuing his education and has a
good job. However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the
hearing. The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of
service.

CONCLUSION: 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 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 and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.
Attachment:
Examiner's Brief

Similar Decisions

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00305

    Original file (FD2003-00305.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) AFSN/SSAN TYPE: GEN PERSONAL APPEARANCE x RECORD REVIEW NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL SIGNATURE OF TO: SAF/MRBR Case heard at Washington, D.C. 550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 FROM: MEMBER SITTING HON GEN voTHc | OTHER DENY hy x ly x Ey x hy x ny x ISSUES A92.35 INDEX NUMBER A67.1 0 A01.43 1 | ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD 2...

  • AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2010-00343

    Original file (FD-2010-00343.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    FINDING: The requests to upgrade the discharge, to change of reason and authority for discharge, and to change of reenlistment code are denied. Attachment: Examiner's Brief CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD-2010-00343 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code. FINDING: The requests to upgrade the discharge, to change of reason and...

  • AF | DRB | CY2011 | FD-2010-00228

    Original file (FD-2010-00228.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at Andrews AFB on 08 Mar 2012. 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. The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant’s discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

  • AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2009-00028

    Original file (FD-2009-00028.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL : : : AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 ANDREWS AFR, MD 20762-7001 AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE- FD-2009-00028 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. After a...

  • AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2008-00330

    Original file (FD-2008-00330.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A93.01 2 |APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 3 |LETTER OF NOTIFICATION 4 |BRIGF OF PERSONNEL FII.E __ COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER , 10 Aug 2010 FD-2008-00330 s at HEANT S ISSUE ANI THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL Ky Case heard in Washington, D.C via video-teleconference from Randolph AFB, Texas. nen: AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 1535...

  • AF | DRB | CY2011 | FD-2010-00270 (2)

    Original file (FD-2010-00270 (2).pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    +Narrative Reason *Reenlistment Code SAF/MRBR SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001 AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD-2010-00270 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to...

  • AF | DRB | CY2012 | FD-2012-00029_13

    Original file (FD-2012-00029_13.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    GENERAL:Theapplicantappealsforupgradeofthedischargetohonorable,tochangethereasonand authorityforthedischarge,andtochangethereenlistmentcode. TheapplicantappearedandtestifiedbeforetheDischarge ReviewBoard(DRB),withoutcounsel,at AndrewsAFBon16Jul2013. Thefollowingadditionalexhibitsweresubmittedatthehearing: Exhibit#5:Applicant'sContentionsTheattachedbriefcontainsavailablepertinentdataontheapplicantandthefactorsleadingtothedischarge.

  • AF | DRB | CY2011 | FD-2010-00298

    Original file (FD-2010-00298.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge, change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code. Applicant submitted no issues regarding the inequity or impropriety of his discharge. The record indicates the applicant was discharged following his admission that he had smoked marijuana prior to entering the Air Force and concealed that information on his entrance documents.

  • AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2008-00553

    Original file (FD-2008-00553.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001 AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD-2008-00553 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 Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided...

  • AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2009-00177

    Original file (FD-2009-00177.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge and change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code are denied. Issue 2, Applicant contends the Board should take into account his post-service activities. However, the DRB opined that there was no relationship between the applicant’s illness and his misconduct and concluded the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.