AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN
TYPE GEN |X PERSONAL APPEARANCE RECORD REVIEW
i i) NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
MEMBER SITTING HON GEN UOTHC OTHER DENY
K*+
X*+
X*+
X*+
tT
ws eee me X*Ft+
ISSUES A01.13 INDEX NUMBER A66.00 : z
A93,17 1 |ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
A94,55 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
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING
| HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER
21 Jun 2012 FD-2009-00730
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.
*Narrative Reason
+RE Code
TO: wo RON: cc seni annua Sannin
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-2009-00730
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 at Andrews —
AFB on 21 Jun 2012. The following witness also testified on the applicant’s behalf: Ms. Lattice Wilson,
applicant’s girlfriend.
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, the change of reason and authority for discharge
and, the 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: Applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct — Drug Abuse
Applicant contends his discharge for drug abuse based on use of Spice was improper because no policy or
law had been legally documented or established in the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He
contends use of this substance was legal at the time and he quit using it after the 13 April 2009 General
Order prohibiting its use was issued. The record indicates Spice, Dream and Spike 99 were discovered
during a dorm room inspection on 30 Mar 2009. Further investigation determined the substances belonged
to the applicant, who admitted during the investigation that he was a frequent user of these herbs, rolling
them into blunts and smoking them five to six times a week. Applicant contends he was misquoted in the
investigative report which specifically states applicant described the difference between the three substances
as “Dream would give him a better high than Spike 99 or Spice.” Applicant received a Letter of Reprimand
(LOR) for possession and misuse of the herbal incenses Dream, Spice, and Spike 99 for euphoric effects and
was subsequently discharged. During his testimony before the Board, applicant stated that he was talking in
generalities about the substances during the investigation and contends he never told the investigators he was
using these products to get high. In his testimony , he described the effects of the products similar to
smoking a Newport and described Spice as providing a longer “boost.”
The fact Spice was not specifically listed as a prohibited substance until June 2010 does not exclude its use
from being a basis for discharge per AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.54, which states, "Drug abuse is incompatible
with military service and airmen who abuse drugs one or more times are subject to discharge for
misconduct.” Paragraph 5.54.1 defines drug abuse broadly to include "illegal, wrongful, or improper use,
possession, sale, transfer, or introduction onto a military installation of any drug.” The term “drug” is also
defined broadly to include not just illegal or controlled substances, but also “any intoxicating substance,
other than alcohol, that is inhaled, injected, consumed, or introduced into the body in any manner for
purposes of altering mood or function.” The Board did not find the lack of a current general order
specifically addressing Spice to automatically make the respondent’s LOR and discharge based on drug
abuse improper. Even without the presence of such a general order, a commander may reasonably find the
evidence to support that an Airman’s use of Spice was prejudicial to good order and discipline and
punishable under Article 134, UCMJ or a dereliction of the Airman’s duty to not use intoxicating substances
for the purpose of altering mood or function. The Board found the statement in the investigation valid and
determined his admission of frequent use for a “boost” meets the requirement for drug abuse and shows he
was not a one-time experimental user.
After review of the record, the Board found the evidence to indicate that the applicant should have known
and probably in fact did know that his use of Spice was wrongful or improper. In his almost three years of
service, he should have been aware that the Air Force policy of zero tolerance to drug abuse would also
prohibit use of Spice. 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.
Attachment:
Examiner's Brief
AF | DRB | CY2013 | FD-2013-00193_13
GENERAL: Theapplicantappealsforupgradeofdischargetohonorableandtochangethereasonand authorityforthedischarge.Theapplicantwasofferedapersonal appearancebeforetheDischarge ReviewBoard(DRB)butdeclined andrequeststhatthereviewbecompletedbasedon theavailableservicerecord.Theattachedbriefcontainsavailablepertinentdataontheapplicantandthefactorsleadingtothedischarge. FINDING: Therequestsfortheupgradeofthedischarge,andtochangeofreasonandauthorityfor dischargearedenied. ISSUE: Applicant...
AF | DRB | CY2013 | FD-2013-00353_13
GENERAL:Theapplicantappealsforupgrade ofdischargetohonorable,tochangethereason andauthorityforthedischarge,andtochangethereenlistmentcode.TheapplicantwasofferedapersonalappearancebeforetheDischargeReviewBoard(DRB)butdeclinedandrequeststhatthereviewbecompletedbasedontheavailableservicerecord. Theattachedbriefcontainsavailablepertinentdataontheapplicantandthefactorsleadingtothedischarge. FINDING:Upgradeofthedischarge,changeofreasonandauthorityfordischarge,andchangeofreenlistmentcodearedenied.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02921
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02921 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be reinstated in the United States Air Force. A commander can determine if a members use of a substance was improper or wrongful based on the circumstances of the use. DPSOS states that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel...
AF | DRB | CY2013 | FD-2013-00490
GENERAL: Theapplicantappealsforupgradeofdischargetohonorable,tochangethereasonand authorityforthedischarge,andtochangethereenlistment code. TheapplicantappearedandtestifiedbeforetheDischargeReviewBoard(DRB),withoutcounsel,atJoint BaseAndrews,Maryland,on21August2014. Theattachedbrief contains availablepertinentdataontheapplicantandthefactorsleadingtothedischarge.
AF | DRB | CY2013 | FD 2013 00490
GENERAL: Theapplicantappealsforupgradeofdischargetohonorable,tochangethereasonand authorityforthedischarge,andtochangethereenlistment code. TheapplicantappearedandtestifiedbeforetheDischargeReviewBoard(DRB),withoutcounsel,atJoint BaseAndrews,Maryland,on21August2014. Theattachedbrief contains availablepertinentdataontheapplicantandthefactorsleadingtothedischarge.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02116
The applicant contends he is innocent of the charges preferred and asserts that, by deductive reasoning, he has identified who the confidential informant must have been, and that individual now recants any statement he may have made to the Air Force Office of Special Investigation regarding whether the applicant every smoked Spice in his presence. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request to have his referral EPR...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015793
f. When asked if any civilian employees who work for the clinic informed him the applicant smoked spice he stated Kim, the receptionist, told him someone told her the applicant smoked spice or used other drugs. She also stated the applicant called her at home after hours and told her not to tell about the other employee moving in with her. She told him that the applicant volunteered to take a urinalysis and she told her she didn't have to at the time.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130014989
d. On 23 March 2011, the applicant again waived his Article 31 rights and denied possessing, using, or smoking spice. On 26 June 2011, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.
AF | DRB | CY2014 | FD-2014-00097
GENERAL:Theapplicantappealsforupgradeof dischargetohonorable,change the reasonandauthority forthedischargeand changetothereenlistmentcode. TheapplicantwasofferedapersonalappearancebeforetheDischargeReviewBoard(DRB)butdeclined andrequeststhatthereviewbecompletedbasedontheavailableservicerecord. Theattachedbriefcontains availablepertinentdataontheapplicantandthefactorsleadingtothedischarge.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00791
He does not think the Air Force really tried to help him not use drugs. On 2 May 2011, the applicant was notified of his commanders intent to discharge him from the Air Force for drug abuse. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application...