AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN
a AIC ss
TYPE UOTHC PERSONAL APPEARANCE xX RECORD REVIEW
{ “NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
HON GEN UOTHC ‘OTHER DENY
ISSUES A94.06 INDEX NUMBER A94.07 oo pe HE UBM
ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
_{BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
I —§_|_
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING
me |e bo fe
HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER
27 May 2010 FD-2009-00130
Case heard in Washinetort D. C.
Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, 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.
SAF/MRBR Soper OF THE aR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
me ye 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
.|- AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE
CASE NUMBER
FD-2009-00130
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 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 reason and authority for discharge inequitable.
ISSUE: The applicant states that her discharge was inequitable because it was based on unproven evidence
and was an isolated incident in 17 months of service with no other adverse action. The record indicates the
applicant tested positive for Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or “Ecstasy” a Schedule 1
Controlled Substance. In June 2001, the applicant tested positive for ecstasy. The applicant subsequently
confessed to her ecstasy use during an interview with Security Force Investigators. At the pre-trail motion,
the Detense requested that the urinalysis and subsequent investigation be suppressed because the investigator
improperly obtained the consent for urinalysis by threatening the applicant that her commander would order
her to provide urinalysis sample if she did not voluntarily give one. The Defense alleged that the investigator
did not inform the applicant of her rights regarding consent of the fact that a command-directed urinalysis
could not be used against her in a court-martial. After interviewing the witnesses and reviewing the Defense
motion, Trial Counsel concluded they could not oppose the motion, which would result in the urinalysis and
confession being suppressed. Without the investigators testimony, urinalysis, and confession; the
government’s case is seriously weakened and the likelihood of an acquittal is much higher. On 8 May 2002,
the member requested to be discharged from the United States Air Force according to AFI 36-3208, Chapter
4, in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. Enclosed in that notification was the applicant’s entitlements. While the
DRB did not condone the applicant’s drug use, they did feel it would have been more equitable to give her a
General 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 the applicant was provided full administrative due process.
However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board concludes that the overall quality of applicant’s
service is more accurately reflected by a General discharge. Therefore, the applicant’s characterization for
discharge should be changed to General.
Attachment:
Examiner's Brief
AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00341
1 "... AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD I 1 NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIIISI. Respondent's Response: The respondent consulted counsel and submitted a written statement on her behalf. Forward a recommendation for separation under paragraph 5.54 with an Honorable discharge to the General Court-Martial Convening Authority, AFSOCICC (AFI 36-3208, para 5.56.2.1); c. Direct that the respondent be discharged from the Air Force with a Genmal dischargc without probation and...
AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2006-00149
On 24 May 2005, I received a general discharge from the United States Air Force for misconduct. I received a Letter of Appreciation from the Mission Support Squadron for volunteering for flag detail. I am recommending your discharge from the United States Air Force for Misconduct: Drug Abuse.
AF | DRB | CY2014 | FD-2014-00130
AIRFORCEDISCHARGEREVIEWBOARDHEARINGRECORD•u •..L\ST,FIRSTMIDDLEINIDAL)GRADE AFSNJSSANPERSONAL APPEARANCEX RECORD REVIEWNAMEOt'COUNSELANDORORGANIZATIONADDRESSANDORORCANIZATION OFCOUNSELMEMBERSITTINGHON GEN UOTHCOTHER DENY xx1ORDERAPPOINTINGTHEBOARD2 APPLICATIONFORREVIEWOFDlSCHARGE3LEITEROFNOTIFICATION4BRIEFOFPERSONNELFILECOUNSEL'SRELEASETOTHEBOARDADDITTONALEXHIBITSSUBMITTEDATTIMEOFPERSONALAPPEARANCETAPERECORDINGOFPERSONALAPPEARANCEHEARINGHEARINGDATE CASENUMBER01May2014...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0294
AIR FORCE DISCIJARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE NUMBLR FD2002-0294 GENERAL: l'he applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change his reenlistment code. Applicant testified however that he never raised the issue of his accuser's statement being false during his Article 15 proceeding or his discharge processing, and therefore by his own actions, no such defense was raised. (Change Discharge to...
AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0168
(EF-V2) CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE | ¢p9902-0168 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. Member had a previous Letter of Reprimand for an unprofessional relationship with a dependent female under the age of 18, and an Article 15 for failing to refrain from having unescorted female minors in his dormitory room. The Board found no wrongful action by the Air Force, and finds the discharge proper and without basis for upgrade.
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2008-00402
The applicant further contends that after his testimony, the applicant was tried by a summary court-martial for perjury and acquitted. On 9 April 2003, the applicant submitted a Chapter 4 request. Subsequently, on 12 May 2003, the applicant was ordered to testify under a grant of immunity at the court-martial of Airman L. During his testimony at Airman L’s court-martial, the applicant testified that he had not used ecstasy on 25 May 2002 and that Airman M did not give him ecstasy on 25 May 2002.
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0365
CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE | b:9992-0365 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. b. Grade Status: A1C - 29 Aug 89 (Article 15, 29 Aug 89) SrA - 25 Feb 89 Alc - 25 Feb 87 Amn - 25 Aug 86 c. Time Lost: None. | Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 25 Feb 86 7.
AF | DRB | CY2001 | FD01-00017
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE I CASENUMBER FD-0 1 -000 17 GENERAL: The applicant appealed for upgrade of his discharge frombailreofiduct to h6-k applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at Andrews AFB, MD, on April 5,2001. Issue 2 : At the time of my court martial, the Base Commander was more likely to approve a "bad conduct" discharge or worse then receive approve lesser punishment. Issue 3: Out of the eight Air...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2011-249
The Navy classmate further stated that the applicant did not ask him to fabricate a story, that he did not see anyone put anything in their drinks while at the club, that the gentleman at the club bought two drinks for each of them and “was gay, acting like he was trying to pick someone up”; that the applicant did not act out of the ordinary after drinking at the club; and that he was unaware of the applicant taking any drugs. On May 2, 2006, the CO sent the Personnel Command a...
AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00130
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LASI', FIK8.1' MIDDLE INITIAL) ~ ~- AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD I C............ ...-..-..-. Appeals for Honorable Discharge, and to Change the RE Code, Reason and Authority for Discharge. (Change Discharge to Honorable, and Change the RE Code, Reason and Authority for Discharge) ISSUES ATTACHED TO BRIEF.