RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

		INDEX CODE 110.02 110.03 108.04
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-00462
		
		COUNSEL:  None

		HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1991 general discharge be set aside and he be returned to active duty or he be given a medical discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been given an opportunity to overcome his deficiencies before discharge action. All his off-duty misconduct was alcohol-related, yet his commander thought he did not have a drinking problem. At no time was his duty performance found to be less than outstanding. He was in the military for more than 12 years before the off-duty misconduct began. He readily admits now to having domestic and serious drinking problems. The commander had an obligation to ensure he received proper treatment, but this did not happen. He was prosecuted and disciplined rather than given the proper medical treatment for his condition. His spouse drove him to drink. He had no intention of taking his wife, an uneducated former bar girl, back to the United States. The Air Force, on its own volition, processed her paperwork even though they knew she was responsible for his problems. The disabling effects of chronic alcoholism should not be considered the result of willful misconduct. He gave the Air Force the best years of his life and was let down when he really needed help.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The following information was extracted from the applicant’s military medical and personnel records, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) examiner’s brief, and Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) medical records.

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 Dec 73. When he reenlisted on 15 Oct 82 for a period of six years in the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt), he had eight years, ten months and eight days of prior active service. 

The applicant’s performance reports have overall ratings in the 7, 8, or 9 range (old system).  Many of the reports, even as early as 1976, contain comments suggesting his judgment, dedication, acceptance of responsibility, and/or management of personal affairs needed improvement.

Based on his performance reports (Exhibit B), the applicant was first stationed as an administrative NCO at Clark AB, Philippines, around Nov 78 and remained there until around Mar 83. While there, he was absent without leave (AWOL) from 20-22 Dec 82. He apparently failed to report for duty on 20 Dec 82 and, after a “pick up” order was issued, turned himself in on 22 Dec 82. 

He was subsequently assigned to Castle AFB, CA, and denied the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM) for the period 6 Dec 82 to 2 Jul 83. The award period includes the AWOL incident in the Philippines, and the performance reports refer to the adverse affects of the applicant’s personal problems and his need to fulfill the responsibilities of an NCO.

The applicant returned to Clark AB, Philippines, in 1986. During the period in question (1988-1991), the applicant was the NCOIC, Command Post Administration, first with the XXX Tactical Airlift Wing (XXX TAW) for about a year and then around 12 Sep 89 with the XXX Military Airlift Support Group (XXX MASG), both at Clark AB.

On 12 Sep 88, the applicant was counseled for being overdue in his $79.84 payment to the Deferred Payment Plan Program (DPPP) with the Army/Air Force Exchange.

On the same day, the applicant was notified of his wing commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment for unlawfully grabbing his wife, twisting her by the ribs, throwing her on the floor, and biting her near her right eye and on her right thigh on 2 Sep 88. On 16 Sep 88, after consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to a trial by court-martial, requested a personal appearance, but did not submit a written presentation. On 19 Sep 88, the wing commander found him guilty and imposed punishment of 14 days of extra duty, restriction to the base for 14 days, and reduction from SSgt to sergeant, suspended until 18 Mar 89. The applicant did not appeal the punishment and the Article 15 was filed in his Unfavorable Information File (UIF). 

A 27 Sep 88 Memo for the Record by the wing commander revealed that there were other domestic incidents, including one in Oct 86 when the applicant alleged his wife stabbed him in the back of the leg. He did not file charges. The wing commander added the applicant claimed most of the incidents were caused by a previous relationship, which produced two children, and which was causing difficulty in the present marriage. The first sergeant and the commander visited the wife shortly after the 2 Sep 88 incident and she stated the applicant was not providing adequate money to pay debts (utilities) and he was spending a lot of time in the street. The applicant apparently was having $600.00 per month deducted from his pay because a previous spouse wrote $4,000 in bad checks. The wing commander indicated he referred the applicant and his wife to the Family Advocacy. The applicant was also counseled that continued incidents of this nature could result in discharge. 

A Mental Health Clinic medical entry reports that the applicant completed all 12 sessions of the Anger Control Group sessions from 1 Feb 89 to 19 Apr 89, the physical violence incident was in apparent remission, the treatment phase was completed, and no further treatment was planned at that time.

On 4 May 89, the Army/Air Force Exchange advised the applicant was overdue in his $88.84 payment to the DPPP. On 5 May 89, the applicant was advised that his NCO Open Mess account was 60 days delinquent for $136.60. 

On 10 Aug 89, the wing commander denied the applicant the AFGCM for the period 3 Jul 86 to 18 Sep 90.

On 17 Nov 89, the applicant was apprehended by the security police for driving while intoxicated on 16 Nov 89. His blood alcohol test (BAT) revealed a high alcohol content. His driving privileges on Clark AB and all other US facilities in the Philippines were revoked for one year. 

A 6 Dec 89 medical entry from the Inpatient Mental Health Clinic noted the applicant was referred by Social Actions for evaluation of alcohol abuse based on the 16 Nov 89 incident, that there was no evidence of withdrawal symptoms or suicidal/homicidal ideation, and that the applicant was a problem drinker. An eight-hour seminar was recommended. 

As a result, on 11 Dec 89, the group commander imposed an Article 15 on the applicant for drunken driving and reduced him in grade to sergeant. The applicant’s written appeal was denied on 18 Jan 90.  The Article 15 was filed in his UIF.

In the interim, on 18 Dec 89, the 2 Dec 89 Airman Performance Report (APR) was referred to the applicant. The rater gave the applicant an overall rating of 9 and recommended him for promotion. However, the group commander (indorser) nonconcurred, indicating the applicant failed to meet expectations for an NCO with regard to bearing and off-duty behavior. The group commander gave the applicant an overall rating of 7 and did not recommend promotion. The division commander added an indorsement, noting that comments were requested but not received within the authorized period, that the applicant’s beginning outstanding performance had significantly deteriorated, that his off-duty behavior required an aggressive positive improvement, and that he was not ready for promotion and should be carefully monitored for continued service.

A 19 Dec 89 Mental Health Clinic entry indicates the applicant was referred by the commander. The applicant was described as sad and disappointed over his occupational problems. He was found to have normal intelligence and intact judgment, and he vehemently denied suicidal/homicidal ideation. Diagnosis was adjustment disorder with depressed mood.

On 11 Jan 90, the group commander imposed an Article 15 on the applicant for failing, on 19 Dec 89, to obey the general curfew order promulgated by the 13th Air Force commander on 21 Mar 89 to avoid a specified vicinity [a bar area] at a specified time. The punishment was reduction to airman first class (A1C), suspended until 10 Jul 90. The applicant did not appeal and the Article 15 was filed in his UIF.

A 19 Jan 90 Memo for the Record by the group commander reports he discussed with the applicant an earlier conversation he (the commander) had with a female who requested more child support from the applicant. [It is not completely clear whether this female was the applicant’s first or second wife, or some other individual.] The group commander referred the applicant to the Family Services Center, the Judge Advocate General, Personal Affairs, and the Embassy about getting his children registered and working out in writing a good faith child support agreement to prevent future problems. The commander told the applicant he was only able to ensure the applicant met his obligations but not to resolve the difference in payments the woman requested and his ability to pay.

On 2 Mar 90, the applicant was advised that his Clark AB NCO Open Mess account was 60 days in arrears for $87.45.

On 4 Apr 90, the applicant’s $150.00 check to the Army/Air Force Exchange bounced; however, he corrected this on 11 Apr 90.

In the meantime, on 4 Apr 90, the group commander advised the applicant he was nonrecommended for promotion to SSgt for cycle 91A5 because of the 11 Dec 89 and 11 Jan 90 Article 15s.

According to a Security Police desk blotter for 13-14 Apr 90, security police were dispatched to the applicant’s quarters to resolve a dispute over a personal matter with another individual. 

On 17 Apr 90, the applicant’s supervisor, with great reluctance, recommended vacation of the applicant’s NCO status. The supervisor noted the applicant’s exceptional performance as an administrative specialist as well as his incompatible off-duty behavior. The supervisor also suggested that the environment seemed to be the source of the applicant’s problems and recommended he be immediately returned to the US.  The group commander vacated the applicant’s NCO status, rendering him ineligible for reenlistment.

On 3 May 90, the group commander notified the applicant that he was recommending an under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge for misconduct, specifically conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. The group commander cited the three Article 15s and the four delinquent payments. The group commander also cited a 26 Mar 90 letter [not in the record] regarding the applicant and his wife being unable to account for numerous items bought at the Commissary and/or Exchange facilities during a “Show and Tell” on 21 Mar 90. [Apparently, the applicant’s wife, a local national, had sold some items on the black market.] The applicant was advised of his right to counsel and to present his case to an administrative discharge board (ADB).

The group commander recommended a UOTHC discharge on 7 May 90 without probation and rehabilitation (P&R). The applicant acknowledged receipt and requested an ADB and lengthy service probation consideration by the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF).

The applicant was given a separation physical on 8 May 90 and found to be worldwide qualified.

A medical entry dated 11 Jun 90 reports the applicant was beaten up by his friend during an argument, and sustained facial injuries.

On 20 Jun 90, the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 2 May 90 was referred to the applicant. His on/off duty conduct was marked unacceptable and he was not recommended for promotion. The rater remarked that the applicant’s off duty conduct failed to meet minimum standards, although it did not affect his job performance. Comments were requested but not received in the allotted time. The overall rating was 2 (new system).

On 2 Jul 90, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for facial trauma resulting from a physical altercation with another enlisted member on 9 Jun 90 (see above).  

On 6 Jul 90, an ADB convened. The XXX TAW commander testified that he was not aware of any alcohol problems the applicant might have had, that the applicant had family and financial problems, and that while the applicant never told him he had an alcohol problem, it was possible he did have an alcohol problem. The XXX MASG First Sergeant testified that the applicant alleged his wife was responsible for a majority of the bills at the NCO club because of playing Bingo. The First Sergeant suggested the applicant terminate his membership and noted that other letters of indebtedness in his file were prior to his assignment with the 624 MASG. He further advised that Social Actions determined the applicant was non-alcoholic and he was entered into the alcohol abuse program. He testified the applicant never told him he had an alcohol problem. The group commander testified regarding the applicant’s job performance and off duty conduct and indicated they were unable to determine if alcohol was involved in the fight with the other airmen other than hearsay that they had been drinking together. The applicant’s supervisors testified that his work never suffered because of his off duty misconduct and that the applicant could have a possible alcohol problem. The applicant testified he was married with four children, two of which were living with him. He was supporting two families. He blamed his misconduct on the environment while others think he has a drinking problem. He said he attempted to go to Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings. He apologized and asked for another chance. His statement and many character references attesting to his professionalism were admitted as exhibits. After deliberations, the ADB recommended the applicant be separated with a general discharge, but that he be offered P&R with a conditional suspension of the discharge.

A legal review on 18 Jul 90 recommended a general discharge without P&R, indicating the applicant had not shown amenability to rehabilitation and that he was entitled to lengthy service consideration if P&R were not offered.

A 6 Aug 90 Mental Health Clinic entry reports the applicant was referred by the commander following a fight with a friend who had been driving him around during the day while he drank. Diagnosis was probable alcohol abuse with a recommendation to the commander to refer the applicant again to Social Actions and, if retained, to the Air Force Alcohol Rehabilitation Center (ARC).

On 15 Aug 90, the wing commander determined that P&R was inappropriate and approved a general discharge, the execution of which was withheld pending lengthy service processing.

On 14 Jan 91, the SAF’s designee denied lengthy service probation and directed the approved administrative discharge.

A 26 Jan 91 medical entry reports the applicant was despondent over the discharge decision but denied suicidal ideation. He indicated his marriage to the local national was shaky and didn’t have a specific plan to cope with the impending separation.

The applicant was discharged for misconduct in the grade of senior airman on 15 Feb 01 after 17 years, 2 months and 8 days of active service with a general characterization.

On 27 Jan 92, the applicant made a personal appearance before the DRB, contending in part that his discharge was based solely on three alcohol-related incidents and that he should have been afforded treatment and rehabilitation. However, his appeal for an honorable discharge was denied. The DRB noted that the three Article 15s alone for spousal assault, driving and drinking, and curfew violations would have justified the discharge given. The DRB added that alcoholism did not excuse the applicant’s frequent misconduct and the Air Force was not obligated to continue to carry a member who did not respond to attempts to rehabilitate him.

In Jun 92, the applicant filed an appeal with the AFBCMR for an honorable discharge. He contended he would not have been discharged if he had been an officer or if a reduction in force had not been in effect at the time. He indicated he was under stress because his ex-wife wrote worthless checks and he was providing for two families. His problems never affected his job performance. His friends told him he had an alcohol problem but his commander never bothered to seek help for him. The HQ AFMPC/JA advised that the applicant was referred to Social Actions, was determined to be a non-alcoholic, and was entered into the alcohol abuse program. Apparently the applicant did not meet the threshold criterion for referral to the ARC. JA noted that all of the evidence, arguments and rationale submitted by the applicant had been considered several times by a number of agencies and found to be without merit. On 8 Sep 93, the AFBCMR denied his application.

On 29 Jan 03, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) continued the applicant’s 10% rating for migraine headaches. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant discussed the applicant’s medical history and concluded there is no evidence in the service medical record of any medical condition that warranted entry into the Air Force Disability Evaluation System (DES). The applicant’s history of alcohol abuse and the possibility for retention and rehabilitation were considered by the board of officers, the applicant’s commander and legal reviewers prior to his discharge. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPD advises that while the applicant was treated for various medical conditions throughout his military career, none appeared serious or life threatening enough as to preclude him from performing his military duties or curtailing his military career. DPPD’s assessment found no errors or irregularities during the administrative discharge process that would justify a 
change in the applicant’s records or reinstatement on active duty. They concur with the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation and recommendation to deny.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D

HQ AFPC/DPPRS discusses the facts of the case and believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 20 Jun 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be returned to active duty or given a medical discharge. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of record and the rationale provided by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and the Air Force. The applicant received three Article 15s for spousal assault, driving and drinking, and curfew violations. His financial situation did not account for these infractions, and the alleged alcoholism did not excuse his frequent misconduct. He was referred to Social Actions and was determined to be a non-alcoholic and was entered into the alcohol abuse program. Apparently he did not meet the threshold criterion for referral to the ARC. The applicant appears to take no responsibility for his own poor judgment, preferring instead to blame others. While his domestic situations may have been stressful, a good deal of it seems to have been of his own making. He knew right from wrong, was in sufficient control to perform his professional duties and, contrary to his assertions, was given repeated opportunities to rehabilitate himself. The evidence, arguments, and rationale he submits have all been considered several times by a number of agencies and found to be without merit. The applicant has provided no new evidence or contention to induce us to overturn these determinations. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has not sustained his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 21 August 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			XXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00462 was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Mar 91 [sic], received
                 17 Mar 03, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 28 Apr 03.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 9 Jun 03.
  Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 Jun 03.
  Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair