RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01251
		INDEX CODE:  110.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  He be restored to the grade of staff sergeant.

3. It also appears that he is requesting that he be awarded sufficient time to allow his retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After his return from Thailand he discovered that his wife was having an affair which led to his severe depression and drinking problems.  He regrets his tardiness for work but nobody would talk to him about his problems.  After he was reduced in rank he requested discharge.  He was told that he had beautiful records and that his discharge would be honorable.  A check of his military records will show that he was a good sergeant.  

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement.  His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 27 May 52.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Oct 64.  The applicant served an unaccompanied tour at ------ Air Force Base from April 1966 through April 1967.  In May 1967, he arrived at ---- AFB, WY.  On 12 Oct 67, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, paragraph 2-15d.  The specific reason for this action was his continual failure in his responsibilities as a member of the Air Force.  The applicant was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification on that same date.  Applicant consulted counsel and elected to waive his right to an administrative discharge board hearing and waived his right to submit matters on his own behalf.  After a legal review of the case file, the wing staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient.  On 13 Dec 67, the applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He served 15 years, 6 months, and 17 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  JAJM states that in a four-month period, between 23 June and 16 October 1967, the applicant received three Article 15s and two vacations of suspended punishment.  He was reduced from staff sergeant to airman basic.  Contrary to his assertions, the file does not support his claim to have been a good sergeant.  Based on his history of misconduct, the discharge was appropriate.  His conduct, which established a pattern of shirking, was sufficient to support a general discharge.  Nothing in the file shows irregularity in the nonjudicial punishment actions or in the administrative discharge.  The JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRRP reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  DPPRRP states that the applicant did not have 20 years of total active federal military service at the time of his discharge and therefore, was not eligible to voluntarily retire.  He is not eligible to be retired under the 15-year retirement program because it was not enacted into law until fiscal year 1993.  Additionally, based on the fact that he was pending involuntary separation action, he would not have been eligible to apply for retirement under the 15-year retirement program.  There are no provisions of law to grant credit for unserved service, nor does DPPRRP support awarding the applicant credit for over 4 years of unserved service to permit retirement.  The DPPRRP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPRS reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  DPPRS states that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that JAJM focuses on the months of his service in which he was severely depressed and traumatized but does not mention his other 15 years of service.  The applicant provided a synopsis of the tours he served and the duties he performed.    His complete submission is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  With respect to his request that he be restored to the grade of staff sergeant and awarded sufficient time to allow his retirement, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopts their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that he has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  

4.  Regarding his request that his discharge be upgraded to honorable, the Board majority found no evidence of error or injustice that would warrant an upgrade of the characterization of his service.  It is the Board majority's opinion in this matter that evidence has not been provided which would lead them to believe that the actions taken against the applicant were improper, contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or based on factors other than his own misconduct.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, the Board majority finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

5.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-01251 in Executive Session on 17 Oct 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By a majority vote the members voted to deny the request.  Ms. XXXX voted to partially grant his request and upgrade his discharge to honorable on the basis of clemency.  She did not desire to submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Mar 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 17 Jul 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 26 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Aug 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Aug 02.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Sep 02.

                                   

MEMORANDUM FOR	THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
SUBJECT:	AFBCMR Case on 
I have carefully reviewed all of the circumstances of this case and I agree with the AFBMCR panel's recommendation that the applicant's requests to be restored to the grade of staff sergeant and that he be granted sufficient service to permit his retirement should be denied.  However, I do not agree with the Board majority's determination that his discharge should not be upgraded to honorable.  In my opinion, based on the particular circumstances of this case, I believe that upgrade of his discharge is warranted.
The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on May 27, 1952.  It appears that in 1967 after his return from a tour in Thailand, he experienced marital problems which led to his dependence on alcohol.  His heavy alcohol consumption resulted in disciplinary problems which ultimately led to the decision to discharge him from the Air Force.  A review of his military personnel records reveals that prior to the events that precipated his commander's decision to impose nonjudicial punishments and recommend administrative discharge action, he served honorably and faithfully for over 15 years.  Further, I see no evidence on the part of the Air Force to offer the applicant any rehabilitative or counseling efforts.  It appears that this, along with the stressors of his failing marriage perpetuated his drinking and disciplinary problems.  There is no other way to explain the abrupt change in his behavior and his sudden tendancy to act in a manner so contrary to his own best interests.  Therefore, I agree with the minority panel member that upgrade of his discharge to honorable in this case is warranted.
Accordingly, it is my decision that his records should be corrected to reflect that he was honorably discharged from the Air Force.

AFBCMR 02-01251

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 13 December 1967, he was honorably discharged and furnished an Honorable Discharge certificate.