RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-02290
		INDEX CODE:  100.06

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2H (Participating in Track 4 or 5 of the Substance Abuse Reorientation and Treatment (SART) program for alcohol, or has failed to complete Track 4) be changed to one that can be waived.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He successfully completed alcohol rehabilitation while stationed at Kadena Air Base, Japan.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his separation document and medical records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant’s available military personnel records indicate that he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15 Oct 1984.  He was honorably discharged on 29 Aug 94 under the provisions of AFR 39‑10 (Reduction in Force) and assigned an RE code of 2H.  He was credited with ten years, one month, and ten days of total active service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating that individuals who have been entered into an alcohol rehabilitation and treatment program, then either fails to complete the program or demonstrates evidence of recurrent use of alcohol after entering or completing a program, are generally considered treatment failures and are eligible for an involuntary release from military service.  In the case under review, the applicant’s narrative reason for discharge does not reflect failure in an alcohol treatment program.  However, the applicant’s RE code is indicative of his record of recurrent alcohol-related incidents, which likely contributed to his candidacy or vulnerability for being released from military service, and prohibited his reenlistment.  Although the applicant contends that he successfully completed alcohol rehabilitation prior to separation, the evidence of record indicated recurring incidents involving alcohol use requiring referrals, initially to a seminar, followed by entry into Track II and Track III programs, and culminating with an in-patient treatment program.  According to the Medical Consultant, at the time of the applicant’s discharge, the discharge authority likely recognized his previous history of alcohol dependence and determined that he would be a poor quality force risk for retention and/or future reentry into military service.  However, the Medical Consultant also acknowledges that alcohol dependence need not be a lifelong illness, and that since the applicant’s discharge, he may have achieved a durable remission.  The Medical Consultant states he found no current objective medical evidence the applicant has sustained a full remission of his alcohol dependence to the extent that warrants a change in his RE code.  He also did not find an error or injustice in the assignment of the RE code.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 29 Sep 08 for review and response 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 applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions or the documentation presented in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Medical Consultant.  We note the Secretary of the Air Force has statutory authority to promulgate rules and regulations governing the administration of the Air Force.  In the exercise of that authority, the Secretary has determined that members separated from the Air Force would be furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation.  No evidence has been presented that convinces us the applicant’s RE code of 2H was inappropriately assigned or inaccurately reflected the circumstances of his separation.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we agree with the recommendation of the Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our decision the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-02290 in Executive Session on 6 Nov 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Jun 08, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 26 Sep 08.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Sep 08.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair