RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03277
		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:

He only had one civil incident, driving under the influence of alcohol, while stationed at Lowry AFB, CO.  However, he did serve honorably while in the Air Force.  While he was assigned to Lakenheath AB, England, he was responsible for the readiness of the wing commander's staff car and the driver for base VIPs and their spouses during a time when terrorists were blowing up staff cars.  He had honorable responsibilities while at the same time receiving counseling for an alcohol problem which eventually led to his discharge.

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his discharge evaluation officer's recommendation; his DD Form 293, Application for Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States; his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; and, his administrative discharge legal review.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 Aug 79 and was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class.

On 1 Dec 81, 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 2-4e.  The reasons for this action were his failure to cooperate in the alcohol rehabilitation program and his inability to meet minimum behavior standards.  Specifically, on 29 Jul 80, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) following a civil conviction of driving while intoxicated; on 29 Dec 80, he received a letter from the NCO club concerning his conduct and damage to club property; on 28 Jan 81, he received an LOR for failure to follow proper driving procedures; on 4 May 81, he received a Record of Counseling for his bed not being made; on 15 Oct 81, he received an LOR for having a female in the dorm after visitation hours; on 29 Oct 81, he received an LOR for nine checks returned for insufficient funds.  On 7 Jul 81, he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice for failure to report to duty on time.  He was ordered to forfeit $100 of his pay and received a suspended reduction to the grade of airman.  On 10 Sep 81, his suspended reduction to the grade of airman was vacated for being disorderly on station.  On 13 Nov 81, he received another Article 15 for being disorderly on station.  He was reduced to the grade of airman basic, was ordered to forfeit $100 of his pay, and was ordered to perform 30 days extra duty.  

The applicant was advised of his rights in this matter and elected not to provide matters on his own behalf.  A discharge evaluation officer conducted an evaluation of the case and recommended that the applicant be discharged, with a general discharge, without probation or rehabilitation.  The assistant staff judge advocate reviewed the case file and found the case to be legally sufficient.  On 18 Dec 81, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general discharge without probation or rehabilitation.  He was discharged on 4 Jan 82.  He served 2 years, 4 months, and 27 days on active duty.

The applicant's request that the narrative reason (Misconduct-Drug Abuse) for his discharge be changed, has been administratively corrected to read "Failure in an Alcohol, Abuse Treatment and Rehabilitation Program."

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant's request.  DPPRS states that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors in his discharge processing.  The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant provided no facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that AFPC made corrections to reflect the true nature of his discharge; however, they added additional comments in item 18 (remarks) and in item 24 (character of discharge).  The changes that were made have taken a discharge that he was already ashamed of and made it appear just as bad as it did before.  He deeply regrets that he did not deal with his alcohol problem at the time.  He has been sober now for over 7 years and is simply wanting his discharge to be changed to honorable and for the narrative reason to reflect the truth, that he had an alcohol problem, not a drug problem.  He believes that he served to the best of his ability while on active duty but just did not have what it took to quit drinking.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 a thorough review of the evidence of record, we find no evidence of an error in this case and do not find his uncorroborated assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  Accordingly, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that he has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  We note the narrative reason for his discharge has been administratively corrected to reflect "Failure in an Alcohol, Abuse Treatment and Rehabilitation Program" rather than "Misconduct-Drug Abuse."  The applicant now contends that the administrative corrections to his DD Form 214 make it appear just as bad as it did before.  It is our opinion that the administrative changes that were made are correct and appropriately reflect the true nature of his discharge from the Air Force.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that further change to his narrative reason for separation is warranted.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 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 Docket Number 02-03277 in Executive Session on 29 Jan 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Nov 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Dec 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Dec 02.