NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
TYPE | | PERSONAL APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
YES
RAPRADION oe
ISSUES INDEX NUMBER
A01.39
A61.12
A66.00
Case heard in Washington, D.C.
application to the AFBCMR,
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
GRADE AFSN/SSAN
X RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
HON GEN UOTHC OTHER DENY
ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
1
2 |APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 |LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
[4 | BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
a
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING
Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an
Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant’s request.
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-2009-00004
GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to general.
The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined
and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.
The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.
FINDING: The Board grants the requested relief. The discharge is upgraded to general.
The Board finds that the evidence of record substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change of
discharge.
ISSUE:
Issue 1. Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because his lawyer advised him incorrectly. The
applicant was a traditional reservist who tested positive for the metabolite of cocaine during a random
urinalysis conducted on a unit training assembly (UTA) weekend. The applicant denies that he used drugs
and states his defense counsel did not use supporting documentation and witness statements he provided to
her to help his case. However, a review of the file reveals that the applicant’s defense counsel had provided
the government notice that a witness would testify at the applicant’s discharge board hearing that he had
witnessed another individual put cocaine in the applicant’s drink at a bar prior to the UTA weekend. Shortly
thereafter, the applicant’s defense counsel submitted an unconditional board waiver on behalf of the
applicant stating that the proposed witness was unable/unwilling to testify at the board hearing and the
applicant did not feel he could prevail based on his own testimony alone. Therefore, the DRB concluded
that the applicant’s defense counsel provided more than adequate assistance to the applicant and it was the
applicant’s witness who was unable/unwilling to testify on the applicant’s behalf. The applicant made the
decision to unconditionally waive his right to a board hearing. For these reasons, the DRB found no inequity
or impropriety in the applicant’s discharge based on this stated reason.
Issue 2. Though not raised by the applicant, the DRB discovered an impropriety in the applicant’s discharge
characterization. The applicant’s defense counsel had raised the point that, under applicable Air Force
regulations, the applicant could not be discharged with a UOTHC characterization for conduct committed
while in a civilian capacity unless the government could show a direct effect on the applicant’s duty
performance. It appears from the record that the applicant was a traditional reservist who tested positive for
cocaine while on a UTA weekend. There is no evidence to suggest that the applicant was on active duty at
the time he actually used cocaine and there is no evidence raised that his use of cocaine directly affected his
performance of duty. This issue is not even discussed in the accompanying legal review. Because there is
no evidence to support the UOTHC characterization, the DRB voted to upgrade the applicant’s discharge to
general.
CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was inconsistent with the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and finds the applicant was not provided
full administrative due process,
In view of the foregoing findings, the Board concludes that the overall quality of applicant’s service is more
accurately reflected by a discharge Under honorable Conditions (General).
Attachment:
Examiner's Brief
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2008-00526
+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 AFHO FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD-2008-00526 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change the reenlistment code. FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of...
AF | DRB | CY2012 | FD-2012-00201_13
AIRFORCEDISCHARGEREVIEWBOARDHEARINGRECORDNAMEOF SERVICEMEMBER(LAST,FIRST MIDDLE L'IJITIAL) GRADEAFSNISSAN x PERSONALAPPEARANCE RECORD REVIEW NAME OFCOUNSELAND ORORGANIZATION(b) (6)ADDRESSANDORORGANIZATIONOFCOUNSEL(b) (6)MEMBERSITTINGHON GEN UOTHCxOTHER DENY ISSUESA92.21A94.55INDEX NUMBERA60.00ORDERAPPOINTING THEBOARDAPPLICATIONFORREVIEW OFDISCHARGELEITEROFNOTIFICATIONBRIEFOFPERSONNELFILECOUNSEL'SRELEASETOTHEBOARDADDITIONALEXHIBITS SUBMITTEDATTIMEOFPERSONALAPPEARANCETAPE...
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2008-00305
*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,...
AF | DRB | CY2013 | FD-2013-00553_13
AIRFORCEDISCHARGEREVIEWBOARDHEARINGRECORDGRADEX RECORDREVIEWADDRESSANDORORGANIZATIONOFCOUNSEL HON GEN UOTHC OTHER DENY1ORDERAPPOINTINGTHEBOARD2APPLICATIONFORREVIEWOFDISCHARGE3LETTEROFNOTIFICATION4BRIEFOFPERSONNELFlLECOUNSEL'SRELEASETOTHEBOARDADDITIONALEXHIBITSSUBMITTEDATTIMEOFPERSONAL APPEARANCETAPERECORDINGOFPERSONALAPPEARANCEHEARINGHEARiNCDATE CASENUMBER03Oct2013...
AF | DRB | CY2005 | FD2005-00032
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW B o r n HEARTNf2 p w r n n n TYPE GEN COWSEL YES No PERSONAL APPEARANCE X NAME O F COUNSEL AND O R ORGANIZATION RECORD REVIEW I ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION O F COUNSEL MEMBER SITTING WDEX NUMBER A67.90 ISSUES A92.35 A02.17 A92.21 A92.19 A94.05 A02.13 , &BIBITS v*+ 1 I ORDER APPOMTMG THE BOARD S U B M ~ ~ ~ ~ I O IQE ~gw:~ I I APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD PERSONAL APPEARANCE I TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE I ^ HEARING...
AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00151
The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s, two Letters of Reprimand, and one Record of Individual Counseling for misconduct. time in the Air Force, my job performance, and taking into account the many challenges that I had faced during my time of service. She also stressed that if I was discharged, then it should be nothing less than an Honorable discharge based on my overall job performance during the four years that I served.
AF | DRB | CY2011 | FD-2009-00576
The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record. FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge. The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant’s discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2008-00330
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)
+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 | CY2010 | FD-2010-00301
Previous CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD-2010-00301 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 was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record. FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge, change...