RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00438
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed and his narrative reason for separation be removed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The narrative reason for separation contradicts his honorable characterization of service and has greatly hindered his ability to obtain civil service employment.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a letter of character reference from a former chaplain and a copy of a letter, dated 27 Nov 02, from the Air Force Discharge Review Board.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15 Sep 88 in the grade of airman basic.  He served on continuous active duty until his involuntary discharge on 13 Nov 97.  His highest grade held was staff sergeant.

A resume of applicant’s last six enlisted performance reports (EPRs) follows:

	      PERIOD CLOSING			OVERALL EVALUATION

			13 Oct 92							5
			13 Oct 93							5
			11 Jun 94							5
			11 Jun 95							5
			11 Jun 96							5
			11 Jun 97							5

On or about 28 Aug 97, he received an Article 15 for three instances of failure to go to his appointed place of duty (5, 15 and 18 Aug 97) and for disobeying a lawful order by not moving into the dormitory by the time required.  He was reduced to the grade of senior airman.

The specific facts surrounding the applicant’s discharge are unknown as the discharge correspondence is not available.  The following information was obtained from the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) Hearing Record.

In Jan 96, applicant self-referred to the local substance abuse rehabilitation program after excessive drinking every day for six months.  He was diagnosed as mildly alcohol dependent and put in Track 4.  In Oct 96, while TDY, he fell from a three-story building, causing serious injury to himself.  A Line of Duty Determination (LOD) was found not to be in the line of duty and a question of alcohol involvement was suspected but not resolved.  In Jan 97, he was again entered into Track 4 rehabilitation due to excessive alcohol abuse.  In Jun 97, he was admitted to the in-patient Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Center at Eglin AFB FL after a four-day drinking binge.  After completing the program in Aug 97, he had a relapse and was found by his unit when he didn’t show up for work.  He was not readmitted to the program but released to his unit and put on suicide watch.  He received a letter of reprimand (LOR) for being found incapacitated on a number of occasions and unable to report to work.  

In Oct 97, he self-admitted himself for further in-patient care due to alcohol binging.  He was then entered into Track 5 for detox pending discharge based on alcohol rehabilitation failure.  He also received another LOR for failure to go due to intoxication and for a motor vehicle accident in which he struck another airman’s car on base and leaving the scene of the accident.

On 13 Nov 97, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 by reason of “alcohol rehabilitation failure” and was issued reenlistment eligibility (RE) code 2C.  He was credited with 9 years, 1 month, and 29 days of active duty.  

On 17 Nov 00, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for a change to the reason and authority for the discharge.  They concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process (see AFDRB Hearing Record at Exhibit B).  

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They found that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, that the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  They also noted that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, nor did he provide any facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.  Accordingly, they recommended his records remain the same.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

HQ AFPC/DPPAE reviewed this application and indicated that the RE code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 9 May 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After careful review of the available records and the information contained in the Air Force Discharge Review Board Hearing Record, the applicant’s discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force instruction and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate.  We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of the applicant’s appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, and absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate instructions were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to disturb the existing record.

4.  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.

___________________________________________________________________

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-2003-00438 in Executive Session on 16 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 03, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 Mar 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 5 May 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair