RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00139
				INDEX CODE:  110.00
	APPLICANT  	COUNSEL:  VFW

	XXX-XX-XXXX		HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

If he had remained in the Air Force he would have been a productive member in society.  Since leaving the Air Force he has received a bachelors and a masters degree.  He has been a notary public for eight years.  He is a high school teacher and has worked as a state employee for over seven years, five years as contract officer.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 6 July 1978, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic for a period of four years.  

The applicant was placed in alcohol rehabilitation in August 1979, July 1980 and November 1980 due to several alcohol related incidents.

On 24 November 1978, the applicant received an Article 15 for being in an off-limits area.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

On 22 January 1979, the applicant received an Article 15 for being drunk and disorderly on station.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction to base.

The applicant received an Article 15 on 11 July 1980 for drunk driving and for being drunk and disorderly.  His punishment consisted of a suspended reduction from airman first class to airman, forfeiture of pay and restriction to base.

An undated court-martial charge sheet indicates that five court-martial charges and specifications were preferred against the applicant for failing to obey a lawful order to halt, resisting arrest, using abusive language and striking the arresting officer, and operating a car while drunk.

On 25 November 1980, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested a discharge for the good of the service and submitted statements in his own behalf.

The commander indicated in his recommendation that the applicant’s request for discharge should be approved due to the applicant’s problems with alcohol and that if the applicant’s request for discharge was approved he should be issued an Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  The commander noted the applicant’s enrollment in the Phase IV of the Base Alcohol Rehabilitation Program (which was the third attempt to aid the applicant in controlling his alcohol problem) and he had obviously failed rehabilitation and to retain him would not be in the best of the Air Force.  

A legal review was conducted on 23 December 1980 in which the staff judge advocate recommended the applicant’s request to be discharged for the good of the service be approved and the applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions.

On 23 December 1980, the discharge authority approved the discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 24 December 1980, in the grade of airman first class with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), in accordance with AFR 39-12 (request for discharge for the good of service).  He served a total of 2 years, 5 months and 19 days of active service.

The applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge upgraded to honorable.  They denied his request on 12 January 1982.

The applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Personnel Board (AFPB) to change his reenlistment code.  The AFPB denied his request on 22 October 1985.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached at 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.  Also, 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:

The applicant’s counsel requests the applicant’s case be reviewed and considered for post-service clemency (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 of timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded to recommend upgrading the discharge.  Based on the documentation in the applicant's records, it appears that the processing of the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service and the characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  We have considered the applicant’s overall quality of service and his post-service accomplishments, however, in view of the numerous instances of misconduct while the applicant was on active duty and the continued acts of misconduct after leaving active duty, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.  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 BC-2003-00139 in Executive Session on 13 May 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Feb 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Mar 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, undated.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Mar 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, Counsel’s Response, 9 Apr 03.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Apr 03, w/atch.