RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01138
		INDEX CODE:  110.00, 112.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded and his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Air Force records indicates that he attended substance abuse classes while in Korea.  He indicates that he never received effective treatment for his alcohol problem and has no documents from his military records indicating that he received treatment.  He believes that if given a second chance he can be a good airman and an asset to the Air Force.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of a letter to Senator XXXXX and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 18 February 1999, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic for a period of four (4) years.

On 25 August 2000, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to initiate discharge action against him for Minor Disciplinary Infractions.  The specific reasons follow:

		On or about 10 March 2000, he wrongfully consumed alcoholic beverages while under 20 years of age.  As a result he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 13 March 2000.

		On 10 April 2000, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following:  On or about 1 April 2000, he failed to obey a lawful general regulation. To wit: paragraph 23(c), United States Forces Korea Regulation 27-5, dated June 1998, by wrongfully consuming alcoholic beverages while under 20 years of age.  After consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to a trial by court-martial and submitted a written presentation in his behalf.  On 14 April 2000, he was found guilty by his commander who imposed the following punishment: Reduction to the grade of airman basic (suspended), 32 days restriction, $50.00 a month for two months, and 11 days extra duty.  Applicant did not appeal the punishment.  The Article 15 was filed in his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

		On or about 11 May 2000, he was involved in an altercation with a senior airman while intoxicated.  He was told by a staff sergeant to go home.  Instead he became belligerent and disrespectful.  As a result, he received an LOR, dated 16 May 2000.

	On or about 1 August 2000, he failed to go to a mandatory formation.  As a result, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC), dated 7 August 2000.

	On or about 5 August 2000, he was drunk and disorderly, which conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.  As a result, he received a Vacation of Suspended Action on 15 August 2000.

	On or about 14 August 2000, he failed to make his supervisor aware of a scheduled appointment.  He also failed to report to work in a timely manner after the appointment.  For this infraction, he was verbally counseled, as evidenced by a Memorandum For Record (MFR), dated 21 August 2000.

	On or about 21 August 2000, he failed to go to his appointed place of duty after attending a mandatory appointment.  As a result, he received an LOR, dated 22 August 2000, and a UIF was established, dated 22 August 2000.

The commander advised applicant of his right to consult legal counsel, submit statements in his own behalf, or waive his rights after consulting with counsel.

On 28 August 2000, the applicant’s Area Defense Counsel (ADC) requested additional time to respond to the Administrative Discharge action and the commander granted the request.

On 31 August 2000, the Defense Paralegal for the applicant requested the applicant be given until 1 September 2000 to respond to the Administrative Discharge action.  The commander disapproved the applicant’s request.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that before recommending the discharge, the applicant had been provided every opportunity to correct his behavior.  He persisted in being irresponsible, despite the administrative actions that had been attempted to reform him.  His continued lack of integrity and irresponsible behavior was a blatant disregard for the high standard of conduct that was expected of military members.  The applicant had been given ample opportunity to conform to Air Force standards.  His failure to adhere to those standards called into question his commitment to the Air Force.

The Staff Judge Advocate recommended the applicant be issued a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).

On 8 September 2000, the discharge authority approved applicant’s discharge.

On 23 September 2000, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic.  He received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct).  He served one year, seven months and six days of total active service.  He received an RE code of 2B - Involuntarily separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions discharge.

On 12 July 2002 the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and that his RE code be changed.  They indicated that there is no legal or equitable basis to upgrade or change the applicant’s discharge or RE code (Exhibit B).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They indicated that based upon the documentation in the file, 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.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.  He has filed a timely request.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant’s record reflects a history of disciplinary actions contrary to good order and discipline.  The RE code 2B is correct.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 19 June 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response 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 timely filed.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the commander exceeded his authority or that the reason for the discharge was inaccurate or unwarranted.  The Board believes that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and the Board does not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  Therefore, in the absence of 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 an 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-2003-01138 in Executive Session on 14 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 February 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 May 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 17 June 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 June 2003.

					   
					   Panel Chair