RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2001-01707
INDEX CODE:  110.02
								COUNSEL:  American Legion

								HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable and his narrative reason for discharge be changed from unsuitability to alcoholism failure.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Aside from his alcohol-related misconduct, his overall service record shows that he served honorably.  His narrative reason for discharge is improper because his only deficiency was his inability to control his alcoholism.  

In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States; copies of his military personnel records including, enlistment documentation, performance reports, Article 15 documentation and his discharge file; requests for records; and an American Legion request for consideration.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 25 June 1971, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 17 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years.  He was trained in the Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 54750, Heating Systems Specialist career field.  The applicant was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3) effective 1 July 1972.  He received two performance reports for the period 25 June 1971 through 9 December 1972, with overall ratings of eight and six.

On 19 January 1972 the applicant received an Article 15 punishment for willful destruction of government property.  He received a reduction to the grade of airman basic, forfeiture of $75 for two months, and 7 days of extra duty.  The applicant appealed the Article 15 punishment on 25 January 1972.  On 14 February 1972, the applicant’s commander granted the appeal and reduced the punishment to reduction in grade to airman basic suspended until 1 July 1972 and 7 days of extra duty.  

On 25 September 1972, civilian authorities arrested the applicant for being drunk and disorderly and for disturbing the peace.  On 28 September 1972 the applicant was convicted and fined $25 for each offense.  On 21 November 1972, the applicant received another Article 15 punishment for being drunk and disorderly on station.  He received punishment of 14 days of extra duty.  The applicant served civilian confinement from 8 December 1972 to 5 March 1973 for an armed robbery conviction.  

On 30 March 1973, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant that he was recommending him for a general discharge under AFR 39-12, Section B, chapter 2, paragraph 2-15a, (unsuitability) for frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities.  The applicant acknowledged receipt, waived his rights to submit statements and to appear before an administrative discharge board.  The staff judge advocate found the file legally sufficient on 6 April 1973.  It was noted in the staff judge advocate review that even though various attempts to rehabilitate the applicant were made with some success from time to time, the applicant apparently could not maintain a steady positive performance in the Air Force.  On 9 April 1973, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  The applicant was discharged effective 12 April 1973 with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service.  He had served 1 year, 9 months and 18 days on active duty.  The applicant lost 87 days due to civilian confinement.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in affect at that time.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not provide any facts warranting a change in his discharge, nor did he submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in his discharge processing.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 May 2003 for review and response (Exhibit D).  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  The applicant did not provide persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  The characterization of discharge which was issued at the time of the applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation and we do not find the characterization of discharge to be in error or unjust.  In view of the foregoing and in the absence of evidence by the applicant attesting to a successful post-service adjustment in the years since his separation, we are not inclined to extend clemency in this case.  Therefore, we conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on his request that it be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

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 will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 18 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Vice Chair
     Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2001-01707 was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 21 Jan 03.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 May 03.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 03.