RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02943
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His commander did not conduct a complete and thorough investigation.  Medical issues were not considered; i.e., depression, alcoholism, treatment, and professional intervention for mental illness.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a personal statement and a certificate.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 May 1982.

Applicant was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class on 12 May 1983.

APR profile since 1983 reflects the following:

	PERIOD ENDING           EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

	 12 May 83	      9
	 12 May 84	      7

On 27 June 1984, the commander notified the applicant that he was recommending discharge for a pattern of misconduct.  He recommended a general discharge.  Basis for the action was he had three alcohol-related incidents that resulted in Articles 15.  He received an Article 15 on 8 August 1982 for resisting apprehension, assault, and drunk and disorderly on station.  Punishment consisted of forfeiture of $125 per month for 2 months, 14 days extra duty and restricted to base for 14 days.  On 24 January 1984, he received an Article 15 for failure to obey a lawful order.  He was reduced to airman, and was ordered to forfeit of $150 and to perform 7 days of correctional custody.  He received his third Article 15 on 4 June 1984 for being disrespectful in language toward a superior NCO and incapacitation for the proper performance of duties due to alcohol intoxication.  He was reduced to airman basic, forfeited $139 and performed 14 days of extra duty.  Evaluation in the Mental Health Clinic in December 1983 diagnosed him as a problem drinker and he entered an out-patient alcohol rehabilitation program.  He stayed in the program until June 1984.  After consulting with counsel, he did not submit statements.  The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support the discharge.  His commanders did not recommend probation and rehabilitation (P&R) because the applicant consistently demonstrated a lack of motivation and desire to rehabilitate himself.  On 30 July 1984, the Discharge Authority approved the separation and ordered a general discharge without P&R.

The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was discharged from the Air Force on 3 August 1984 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Pattern of Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline) with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He served 2 years, 2 months and 22 days on active duty.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant states that there is no evidence in either the applicant’s personnel record, performance reports or service medical records that he may have exhibited signs of depression.  His performance reports reflect excellent duty performance.  He was also evaluated by mental health in relation to his alcohol abuse and no diagnosis of depression was made, only problem drinking.

Although alcoholism has been called a disease and is treated by behavioral health specialists, individuals with this addiction are not excused from the consequences of behavior relating to alcohol abuse.  Drug and alcohol abuse are grounds for administrative discharge from the Air Force.  Illegal drug abuse is misconduct.  Alcohol abuse in and of itself is not misconduct.  Driving while intoxicated, being drunk and disorderly while on station, and being incapacitated for duty is misconduct that is not mitigated by a diagnosis of alcoholism.  Failure to remain sober after an alcohol rehabilitation program, or failure to complete a program is grounds for discharge as well.

Action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the Discharge Authority.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 14 February 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  In addition, letters soliciting information concerning his post-service activities and providing the FBI report for comment were forwarded to the applicant on 26 March 2003 and 22 April 2003.  All the foregoing correspondence was returned to this office as undeliverable with no forwarding address.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error or that he has been the victim of an injustice.  His contentions are noted; however, in our opinion, the detailed comments provided by the appropriate Air Force offices adequately address those allegations.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence by the applicant indicating that the information in his discharge case file was erroneous, that his commanders abused their discretionary authority, or that his substantial rights were violated, we have no basis to find the applicant’s discharge was erroneous or unjust at the time it was effected.

4.  We note the information contained in the FBI report showing the applicant’s last involvement with law enforcement authorities apparently occurred in 1997.  We also noted the information provided by the applicant indicating he underwent Substance Abuse residential treatment in 2002.  In the absence of evidence by the applicant indicating his discharge was erroneous or unjust, the only option available to this Board by which favorable consideration of his request is possible is clemency.  Generally, this Board may favorably consider a request for clemency in the form of an upgrade of a discharge based on the submission of evidence attesting to a successful post-service adjustment showing that the applicant has exhibited the characteristics associated with good citizenship over an extended period of time.  In this case, it appears this applicant has begun to make some effort to overcome his past patterns of behavior and to establish himself as a productive member in the community.  We encourage the applicant to continue his efforts in this regard.  However, in view of the short duration of his present good behavior, the evidence provided is not sufficient to warrant clemency at this time.  Should the applicant establish a record of good citizenship over an extended period of time, he may, of course, provide evidence to this Board to establish that fact and request reconsideration of his request.  Without such evidence, we are not inclined to favorably consider the applicant’s request at this time.

_________________________________________________________________

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 11 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 4 Sep 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	FBI Report.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 15 Jan 03.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 Feb 03.
	Exhibit F.	Letters, SAF/MRBR and AFBCMR, dated 14 Feb 03, 
               	26 Mar 03 and 22 Apr 03.