RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00988
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  2 OCT 2007

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation of Alcohol Abuse Rehabilitation Failure be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his discharge he was a twenty-three year old (know-it-all).  He completed four years with a one-year extension.  Soon after his divorce, he was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI).  He was asked to attend Alcohol Rehab classes; however, he refused to go and requested separation.  He was separated in less than a month and has had this reason for separation ever since.

He is now forty-five years old and has been working at a Veterans Affairs center for the past five years.  He has a bachelor’s degree in business administration and has just been accepted at a graduate school.  He has had to live with the stigmatism of his reason for separation for twenty-three years.  He is sober and is a federal government worker.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 Jun 78 for a period of four years.

On 2 Jun 83, the squadron section commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant for failure in alcohol abuse treatment.  The specific reasons for the proposed action were:

     On 24 Feb 83, applicant entered into alcohol rehabilitation and was identified as a problem drinker.  He later became uncooperative and no longer wished to continue treatment and wanted to be considered as a failure.  

     On 19 May 83, he failed to successfully complete the Substance Abuse Reorientation and Treatment Program (SART).

On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and after consulting with counsel and having been advised of his rights, applicant submitted a conditional waiver of his rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing contingent on his receipt of no less than an honorable discharge.  .  On 24 Jun 83, the staff judge advocate found the case file legally sufficient to justify an administrative discharge for failure in alcohol abuse treatment and recommended that the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.  On 6 Jul 83, the discharge authority accepted the conditional waiver and directed the applicant be honorably discharged and issued a DD Form 256AF (Honorable Discharge Certificate).

On 8 Jul 83, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10 by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure and was issued RE code 2C.  He served 5 years and 1 month of active duty service.  

On 16 Jan 87, the Air Force Personnel Board considered the applicant’s request to have his RE code of 2C upgraded.  They found the RE code was within regulatory requirements and properly issued.  However, applicant presented evidence of post service achievement which convinced the Board that the reason and circumstances for his code had been overcome.  They directed his RE code be changed to RE-1 and he be eligible to reenlist, provided otherwise qualified.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended applicant’s request be denied.  Based on documentation in the file, they found the discharge consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  They also noted applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing and provided no other facts warranting a change to his narrative reason for separation.  

A complete copy of the 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 26 April 2006 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

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.  The majority of the Board finds that the discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulations and finds no evidence to indicate the applicant’s separation or his reason for separation was inappropriate.  The majority of the Board finds no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, they do not believe the applicant has suffered an injustice.  The Board noted the Air Force Discharge Review Board’s decision to correct the applicant’s reenlistment eligibility (RE) code based on his post-service information he submitted to them in 1986; however, other than his own statements the applicant has not presented any documentation to substantiate his post-service activities since 1986 and the majority of the Board is of the opinion a further correction of the applicant’s record is not warranted.  Therefore, the majority of the Board finds no basis upon which to favorably consider applicant’s request to change his narrative reason for separation.

___________________________________________________________________

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-2006-00988 in Executive Session on 6 June 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application.  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX voted to grant, but he does not wish to submit a Minority Report. The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Mar 06, w/atch. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, 	HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Apr 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Apr 06.

                                   

AFBCMR  BC-2006-00988

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD 
                                        FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

	I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members.  The majority found that applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be denied.

	Please advise the applicant accordingly.