RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03236
INDEX CODE:  110.02
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX			COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXXXXXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Aside from his alcohol-related misconduct, his overall service record shows that he served honorably.  He requested rehabilitation/treatment in the military but instead was discharged.  He has been sober since October 1993 and is currently attending support group counseling for his alcoholism.  

The applicant provided no evidence in support of his appeal.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 August 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 17 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years.  He was trained in the Security Police career field.  The applicant was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3) effective 15 August 1980.  He received three performance reports during the period 15 August 1979 through 16 January 1982, with overall ratings of nine.

On 16 January 1981, his commander directed the applicant to the Emergency Room Sobriety Detachment for evaluation after being discovered drunk on duty.  On 22 January 1981, the applicant received an Article 15 punishment for being drunk while on duty.  He received a suspended reduction to the grade of airman and ordered to forfeit $100 per month for two months.  On 27 January 1981, the applicant was evaluated at the medical facility for possible alcohol abuse.  On 23 January 1982, civilian authorities arrested the applicant for driving while intoxicated.  On 26 January 1982, the applicant was referred to Social Actions for a substance abuse evaluation.  On 28 January 1982, civilian authorities arrested the applicant for public intoxication.  On 28 January 1982, his commander notified the applicant that he was permanently decertified from the performance of duties under the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP), based on his Article 15, dated 15 January 1981, for violation of Article 112 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (drunk on duty); and his arrest by civil authorities on 23 January 1982, for intoxication.  On 1 February 1982, the applicant acknowledged receipt of his decertification notification.  On 3 February 1982, Social Actions evaluated the applicant for potential alcohol abuse and recommended the applicant for rehabilitation.  

On 8 February 1982, his commander notified the applicant that he was recommending him for a general discharge under AFM 39-12, Section B, Chapter 2, paragraph 2-15a (unsuitability), for frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities.  The applicant acknowledged receipt and consulted appointed counsel.  On 8 February 1982, his commander also made a recommendation to the discharge authority that the applicant be furnished a general discharge without probation or rehabilitation citing that attempts to rehabilitate the applicant was to no-avail.  On 9 February 1982, the Group Commander appointed an Evaluation Officer to determine whether the applicant should be discharged for misconduct under the provisions of AFM 39-12, paragraph 2-15a.  On 11 February 1982, the applicant received a physical examination and put on a medical delay for further specialized evaluation and/or treatment.  After an interview with the Evaluation Officer on 12 February 1982, the applicant submitted a rebuttal statement and requested to be retained in the Air Force.  On 16 February 1982, the Evaluation Officer reported that the applicant blames his documented problems with alcohol on situations that were either stressful or emotional, and it appears that he uses alcohol as a periodic crutch.  The Evaluation Officer recommended the applicant be furnished a general discharge.  On 18 February 1982, the staff judge advocate found the discharge file legally sufficient.  On 19 February 1982, a medical evaluation found the applicant a problem drinker with no psychiatric diagnosis and was referred for rehabilitation.  The applicant was removed from medical delay effective 22 February 1982 after it was determined that no medical treatment was required.  On 2 March 1982, the Chief, Mental Health Services recommended the applicant enter into a local alcohol rehabilitation group.  The discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  The applicant was discharged effective 3 March 1982 with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service.  He had served 2 years, 6 months and 19 days on active duty.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRSP recommends denial.  DPPRSP states the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in affect at that time.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not provide any facts warranting a change in his discharge, nor did he submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in his discharge processing.  The DPPRSP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 31 October 2003, 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 probable error or injustice.  The applicant did not provide persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  The characterization of discharge which was issued at the time of the applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation and we do not find the characterization of discharge to be in error or unjust.  In view of the foregoing and in the absence of evidence by the applicant attesting to a successful post-service adjustment in the years since his separation, we are not inclined to extend clemency in this case.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on 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 this application in Executive Session on 18 December 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-03236 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Oct 03.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 21 Oct 03.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.