RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01369
				INDEX CODE:  110.00
	APPLICANT  	COUNSEL:  None

	SSN		HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He developed alcoholism at an early age.  He did not heed warnings from supervisors and peers.  It was years before he was honest with himself about his alcoholism and sought help.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 13 February 1984 in the grade of airman basic for a period of 4 years.

On 20 February 1986, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to initiate discharge action against him for a pattern of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  The specific reasons for the discharge action were as follows:

	a.  On 25 June 1985, the applicant received a letter of reprimand for excess speed while on duty.  

	b.  The applicant received a record of individual counseling on 13 July 1985 for failure to meet scheduled appointment.

	c.  On 17 July 1985 he received another record of individual counseling for failure to meet scheduled appointment.  

	d.  On 7 August 1985, the applicant received a letter of reprimand for being late for duty.  

	e.  The applicant received a letter of reprimand, unfavorable information file and placed on the control roster on 29 August 1985, for being late for duty with alcohol on his breath.  

	f.  On 14 February 1986, the applicant received a letter of reprimand, unfavorable information file and placed on the control roster driving without headlights and under the influence of alcohol.  

	g.  The applicant received an Article 15 on 19 February 1986 for assaulting a female airman.  His punishment consisted of reduction to airman basic, fined $600 and restricted to the base for 60 days.

The commander advised applicant of his right to consult legal counsel; present his case to an administrative discharge board; be represented by legal counsel at a board hearing; submit statements in his own behalf in addition to, or in lieu of, the board hearing; or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that he repeatedly counseled the applicant with negative results.

On 20 February 1986, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to submit a statement.

A legal review was conducted on 21 February 1986 in which the staff judge advocate recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge with no probation and rehabilitation.

A resume of applicant's performance reports follows:

		PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION

			13 Feb 85			9
			13 Feb 86			9

Applicant was discharged on 26 February 1986, in the grade of airman basic with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge, in accordance with AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-47b for a pattern of misconduct consisting of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  He served a total of 2 years and 14 days of active service.

The applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his under honorable conditions (general) discharge upgraded to honorable.  They denied his applicant's request on 15 November 1991.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of investigation, Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the 
data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's file, they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations of that time.  Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  Although the applicant provided character statements, he did not provide any facts to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 24 May 2002, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.  

_________________________________________________________________

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 of timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Based on the documentation in the applicant's records, it appears that the processing of the discharge and the characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 02-01369 in Executive Session on 30 July 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 May 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Available Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 May 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 May 02.