Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | DRB | CY2015 | FD-2015-00013
Original file (FD-2015-00013.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
 NAM E m·SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, HRST MIDDLE INITIAL)        GRADE
 (b)(6)
 TYPE GEN         I        PERSONAL APPEARAN CE     x        I        RECORD REVIEW
 COUNSEL  NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORCANIZATION      A DDRESS AND OR ORCANIZATION Ot'COUNSEL
 YES      No
 x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER SIITING  HON      GEN      UOTHC    OTHER    DENY
(b)(6)   x
x x x
x
ISSUES   A94.53   INDEX NUMBER     A66.00   EXHlBITSSUBMITTEDTOTHEBOARD
ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FCLE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE     CASE NUMBER

24 Jun 2015      FD-2015-00013
APPLICANT'S ISSUE A.ND THE BOARD'S DECISIONA.L RATIONALE A.R.E DISCUSSED ON THE ,\TTACHED l\lllFORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONA.LE.

Case heard in Washington, 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 appl ication to the AFBCMR.








(b)(6)

,




JNDORSEMENT      DATE: 711012015

TO:      FROM:
SA.F/MRBR        SECRETA RY OFTUtAIR FORCE P£RSONN£1,COUNCI L
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40      15JS COM.MANO OR,EE WINC, JRD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742      Ai DRtWS Af8, MD!076i.7001


AFHQ FORM 0-2077,JAN 00         (EF-V2)  Previous



AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE		 CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00013

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

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 denies the upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUE: The applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct - Drug Abuse

The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant's discharge, is authorized to change the characterization of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the applicant. The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. In order to adhere to Mental Health Amendments to 10 USC 1553, a physician with specialized training on mental health disorders was present for this board. The applicant's record of service included three Article 15s. His misconduct included wrongful use of spice, wrongful use marijuana, wrongful possession of spice, and wrongfully possessing drug paraphernalia .

The applicant submitted no issues regarding the inequity or impropriety of his discharge. The applicant does submit that he is attempting to put the past behind him; however the General discharge has been a hindrance to his life. After review of the record, the Board found in his 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 and
marijuana. 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.

A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the Board can establish that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge. After a thorough review of the record, the Board found no evidence to justify an upgrade of the discharge characterization .

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that 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 | CY2013 | FD-2013-00580_13

    Original file (FD-2013-00580_13.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    GENERAL: Theapplicantappealsforupgradeofdischargetohonorable.TheapplicantwasofferedapersonalappearancebeforetheDischargeReviewBoard (DRB)butdeclinedandrequeststhatthereviewbecompletedbasedontheavailableservicerecord. Theattachedbriefcontainsavailablepertinentdataontheapplicantandthefactorsleadingtothedischarge. FINDING: TheBoarddeniestheupgradeofthedischarge.

  • AF | DRB | CY2015 | FD-2014-00633

    Original file (FD-2014-00633.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    GENERAL: TheapplicantappealsforupgradeofdischargetoHonorable. The applicantwasofferedapersonalappearancebeforetheDischargeReviewBoard(ORB)butdeclined andrequests thatthereviewbecompleted based ontheavailableservicerecord. Theattached briefcontainsavailablepertinentdataontheapplicantandthefactorsleadingtothedischarge.

  • AF | DRB | CY2015 | FD-2014-00513

    Original file (FD-2014-00513.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AJRFORCEDISCHARGEREVIEWBOARDHEARINGRECORDNAME OFSERVICEMEMBER(LAST,FIRST MlDOLE INIT"IAL)(b)(6)GRADETYPE GE I PERSONAL APPEARANCEx I RECORD REVIEW COIJNSEL:NAMEor COUNSELANDORORGAN17-TIONADDRESS ANDORORCANIZATIONOF COUNSEi,.YES No x MEMBER SITTI G VOTEOFTHEBOARDHONGENUOTHCOTllERDENY(b)(6)xxxxxISSUES A94.53 11''0£;\ NU)18£R A66.00EXHIBITSSUBMI1TEDTOTHEBOARD1ORDERAPPOINTINGTHEBOARD2APPLICATION FORREVIEWOFOISC'llARGE3LETTEROFNOTIFICAT ION4BR IEFOFPERSONNELFILECOUNSEL'SRELEASETO...

  • AF | DRB | CY2015 | FD-2014-00401

    Original file (FD-2014-00401.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    GENERAL: TheapplicantappealsforupgradeofdischargetoHonorable,tochangethereasonandauthorityforthedischarge,and tochange thereenlistmentcode. Theapplicantwasoffereda personalappearancebeforetheDischargeReviewBoard(DRB)butdeclined andrequests thatthereview becompletedbasedontheavailableservicerecord. Theattachedbrief containsavailablepertinentdataontheapplicantandthefactors leadingtothedischarge.

  • AF | DRB | CY2015 | FD-2014-00688

    Original file (FD-2014-00688.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    GENERAL:Theapplicantappeals forupgrade ofdischargetoHonorable.Theapplicantwasofferedapersonal appearancebeforetheDischargeReviewBoard (DRB)butdeclined andrequeststhatthereviewbecompletedbasedon theavailableservicerecord.Theattachedbriefcontainsavailablepertinent dataontheapplicant andthefactorsleadingtothedischarge. FINDING: TheBoard...

  • AF | DRB | CY2015 | FD-2012-00423

    Original file (FD-2012-00423.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    GENERAL: Theapplicant appealsforanupgradeofdischargetoHonorable;achangetothereasonandauthorityforthedischarge;andtochangethereenlistmentcode. Theapplicantwasofferedapersonal appearancebeforetheDischargeReviewBoard(DRB)butdeclinedandrequeststhatthereviewbecompletedbasedontheavailableservicerecord. Theattachedbriefcontainsavailablepertinentdataontheapplicantandthefactorsleadingtothedischarge.

  • AF | DRB | CY2011 | FD-2009-00730

    Original file (FD-2009-00730.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) without counsel at Andrews — AFB on 21 Jun 2012. 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...

  • AF | DRB | CY2015 | FD-2013-00787

    Original file (FD-2013-00787.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    GENERAL: Theapplicantappealsforupgradeofdischarge toHonorable. TheapplicantappearedandtestifiedbeforetheDischarge Review .Board(DRB),withcounsel,viavideoteleconferencebetweenJointBaseAndrews Maryland,andJointBaseSanAntonioTexason22Jun2015. Thefollowingwitnessalsotestifiedontheapplicant's behalf: VanessaCamarena.

  • AF | DRB | CY2013 | FD-2013-00759

    Original file (FD-2013-00759.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    GENERAL: The applicantappeals forupgradeofdischargetohonorable. TheapplicantwasofferedapersonalappearancebeforetheDischargeReviewBoard(DRB)butdeclined andrequests thatthereviewbecompleted basedontheavailable servicerecord. Theattachedbriefcontainsavailablepertinentdataontheapplicantandthefactorsleadingtothedischarge.

  • AF | DRB | CY2015 | FD-2015-00069

    Original file (FD-2015-00069.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    GENERAL: TheapplicantappealsforupgradeofdischargetoHonorable. TheapplicantwasofferedapersonalappearancebeforetheDischargeReviewBoard(DRB)butdeclined andrequeststhatthereviewbecompleted based ontheavailableservicerecord.Theattachedbriefcontainsavailablepertinentdataontheapplicantandthefactorsleadingtothedischarge. FINDING: TheBoarddeniestheupgradeofthedischarge.