AIR FORCE DISCIEARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

 

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

x | PERSONAL APPEARANCE |. RECORD REVIEW

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

 

 

 

 
   

 

RASA a

i es a
OTHER DENY
i rT

HON GEN UOTHC

 

 

 

X*+

 

X*+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ISSUES A92.15 INDEX NUMBER A66.00 : Ake nd
A93,17 1 THE BOARD
A94.05 2 [APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 |LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
oi

 

4 |BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD)

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

 

 

 

 

a

HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER

16 Apr 2010 FD-2008-00576
oT :

 

 

 

 

 

    
    

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.

* Change Reason and Authority
+ Change Reenlistment Code

a
ais
: oo

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

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 32RD 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-2008-00576

  

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), with counsel, via vidco
teleconference between Andrews AFB Maryland and Robins AFB GA on 16 Apr 2010.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:
Exhibit #5: Applicant’s Contentions

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 the discharge was improper because it was based on an unfounded allegation of
drug use. Specifically, the applicant contends that she tested positive for oxymorphone after she ingested a
tablet provided to her by a friend in the hopes that it would relieve the pain from a headache. She explains
that she did not know what the tablet was when her friend provided it to her, and had no idea it was a
prescribed medication until after she had tested positive for oxymorphone and confronted her friend about
the pill. The DRB noted that the applicant failed to present this evidence at the time she was issued an
Article 15 for the drug use or at the time of her discharge, and did not raise an argument for retention in her
response to the discharge notification. The DRB concluded the service characterization, narrative reason,
and RE code assigned were appropriate.

    
     
   
   
   
   
    
 
       
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
     

  

Issue 2. Applicant contends that her discharge did not take into account the good things she did while in the
service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by her performance reports,
character letters and other accomplishments. However, the DRB found the seriousness of the willful
misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance. The record indicates that the
applicant was discharged for Misconduct—Drug Abuse. She received an Article 15 action for wrongful use
of oxymorphone, a schedule If controlled substance. The record shows that the applicant’s drug abuse was
identified through random urinalysis testing. In her response to her Article 15 action, the applicant stated
she had never “wrongfully and knowingly taken any drugs considered to be narcotics or controlled
substances without a prescription” and denied having any knowledge of how the drug could have entered her
system. The record also indicated the applicant had received an Article 15 for failure to go and being drunk
on duty; an Article 15 for wrongfully communicating a threat; two Letters of Reprimand for unlawfully
putting her hands on another airman; and two Letters of Counseling for missing scheduled appointments. In
the applicant’s response to her discharge action, she reiterated her claim that she never knowingly used
oxymorphone. After review of the record, the Board found no evidence to indicate that the applicant did not
know right from wrong or that in her three years and 11 months of service was unaware of the Air Force
policy of zero tolerance to drug use. The Board found the negative aspects of the willful misconduct
outweighed the positive aspects of the applicant’s performance and concluded that the discharge was
appropriate. The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for
this case.

Issue 3. Applicant cited her desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade. The DRB
noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, she signed a statement (date unknown) that she
understood she must receive an Honorable discharge to receive future educational entitlements. The
applicant admitted to the DRB that she recalled receiving such a document. The Board was sympathetic to
the impact the loss of these benefits was having on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or
impropriety which would warrant an upgrade. The Board concluded the discharge was appropriately
characterized.

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