RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00481
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During his time in the service he had a problem with alcohol.  Since his discharge the problem has been corrected.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29 March 1985 in the grade of airman basic for a period of four years.

On 9 April 1986 the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending him for a general discharge for minor disciplinary infractions that covered the period of time from 20 August 1985 to 21 March 1986.  Misconduct included two failures to go on 20 August and 10 September 1985; an Article 15, 7 October 1982, for assault and 30 days in correctional custody; failure to prepare room for inspection, 22 November 1985; breach of standards of conduct and alcohol abuse, 7 March 1986; failure to go and negative attitude, 21 March 1986.  The applicant was placed in alcohol rehabilitation on two separate occasions.  Previous efforts at rehabilitation, including counseling by his supervisors 7 times and Article 15 actions were not successful in improving his conduct and attitude.  For this reason probation and further rehabilitation was not recommended. 

On 5 May 1986 the Discharge Authority approved a general discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 9 May 1986, in the grade of airman.  He received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, under the provisions AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions).  He served 1 year, 1 month and 11 days total active duty service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated that they were unable to identify with arrest record on the basis of information furnished (Exhibit E).

On 24 March 1988, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to an honorable discharge (Exhibit B).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS based upon the documentation in the file, they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  The Air Force Discharge Review Board denied his request for upgrade on 2 May 1988.

The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 22 March 2002, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

On 12 April 2002, the Board staff requested the applicant provide post-service documentation within fourteen (14) days.  Applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

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.	We find no impropriety in the characterization of applicant's discharge.  It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.

4.	We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  We have considered applicant's overall quality of service, the events which precipitated the discharge, and available evidence related to post-service activities and accomplishments.  On balance, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00481 in Executive Session on 20 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 February 2002.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 March 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 March 2002.
   Exhibit E.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 April 2002, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 April 2002.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 May 2002.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.