RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03565
					COUNSEL: NONE
					HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to honorable. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In 1995, he applied to the AFDRB for an upgrade of his discharge 
to honorable; however, his request was denied.  The AFDRB should 
not have compared his issues to the majority of the airmen who 
enter the Armed Forces because his case was unique.  
Specifically, he was a young airman under an unsurmountable 
amount of stress.  He reached out for help, but was never 
diagnosed or provided the assistance to deal with the stressful 
issues in his life. 

He believes the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) did not 
have all the relevant information to make an accurate assessment 
of his case.  Specifically, they did not review the letter 
submitted by his Area Defense Council (ADC), dated 25 Oct 88 or 
his statement seeking and requesting help.  The AFDRB claimed he 
chose to ignore the assistance offered; however, that was not 
the truth.  He does not condone his behavior but believes it 
could have been prevented had he been afforded the help he 
requested.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, a memorandum from the ADC, an undated four-page 
statement, and letters of support. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 Oct 87, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 

On 20 Oct 88, the applicant was notified by his commander of his 
intent to recommend his discharge from the Air Force for 
Misconduct—Minor Disciplinary Infractions, under the provisions 
of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The specific 
reasons for the action included drunk and disorderly and 
dereliction of duty; all in violation of various articles of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); for which he received 
records of individual counseling, reduction to the grade of 
airman basic, 45 days restriction to the limits of the base, 45 
days extra duty, forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for two 
months and Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) under the provisions of 
Article 15 of the UCMJ.  Before recommending discharge, the 
commander noted the applicant was counseled on his 
behavioral/disciplinary problems and offered assistance and 
guidance in improving his personal behavior and responsibilities 
to the Air Force.  

On 25 Oct 88, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant 
elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  On the same 
date, both the applicant and his ADC submitted letters 
requesting he be continued on active duty and placed in the 
Probation and Rehabilitation (P&R) program.  The ADC noted that 
both the applicant’s incidents involved alcohol, yet no alcohol 
rehabilitation regimen was provided.  In addition, he felt that 
with proper treatment, the applicant might be able to change his 
pattern of behavior and prove to be a valuable asset to the Air 
Force.

On 4 Nov 88, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found the case to be 
legally sufficient and recommended the applicant receive a 
general (under honorable conditions) discharge without the offer 
of P&R.  The SJA noted the applicant was given the opportunity 
for rehabilitation after his first alcohol incident and chose 
not to voluntarily enroll in any program after it was 
recommended that he not be involuntarily placed in a program.  
Moreover, the SJA stated the applicant’s intemperate use of 
alcohol did not so impair his faculties that he could not 
appreciate the wrongfulness of his act when he assaulted an 
Italian National.  Further, the SJA noted the applicant’s 
repeated serious misconduct made it unlikely that he would 
successfully complete his enlistment or that his presence in a 
probationary status would be consistent with the maintenance of 
good order and discipline.  The significant negative aspects of 
the applicant’s misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of 
his record.   

On 21 Nov 88, the 40th Tactical Group commander (40 TACG/CC) 
recommended to the 40th Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance 
Squadron commander (40 CAMS/CC) and the SJA that the applicant 
receive P&R and stated “get him some help with his apparent 
alcohol problem.”

On 28 Nov 88, the 40 TACG/CC granted P&R with a suspension of 
the approved discharge action for a period of 12 months upon the 
applicant’s voluntary acceptance of the terms of the P&R 
program.  It was noted the suspended discharge would be 
automatically cancelled, unless the suspension was vacated or 
action to vacate was initiated. 

By an undated letter, the applicant acknowledged receipt and 
understanding of his acceptance of the terms of the P&R program 
for the period 12 Dec 88 to 12 Dec 89.  

On 2 Oct 89, the applicant was notified by his commander of his 
intent to vacate his suspended approved discharge for minor 
disciplinary infractions.  The reasons for the action included 
dereliction of duty and making an official false statement; all 
in violation of various articles of the UCMJ; for which the 
applicant received two Article 15s, reduction to the grade of 
airman, 45 days extra duty, reprimand and forfeiture of $250.00 
pay per month for two months.  Before recommending vacation 
action, both the applicant’s current and previous commanders 
carried out a plan for P&R in which the applicant could show 
that he was capable of good conduct for a reasonable period of 
time and in varying conditions, and in which he could show that 
he could perform his assigned duties well.  The commander did 
not recommend a second offer of P&R.  He noted that the 
seriousness of a suspended discharge failed to affect the 
applicant, he did not show the necessary potential for continued 
service and that retention was not in the best interests of the 
applicant or the Air Force.  On the same date, the applicant 
acknowledged receipt of the vacation of the suspended approved 
discharge action.

In an undated letter, the applicant’s ADC provided a statement 
requesting the applicant be continued in the P&R program and 
enrolled in an alcohol rehabilitation program.

On 19 Oct 89, the SJA found the case to be legally sufficient to 
support vacating the suspension of the discharge and recommended 
the applicant receive a general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge.  The SJA noted the applicant’s repeated willful 
misconduct made it clear he no longer desired to comply with Air 
Force standards or the conditions of his P&R despite the 
favorable treatment accorded him by his unit.  

On 30 Oct 89, the discharge authority approved the vacation of 
his suspended discharge.  On 14 Feb 90, the applicant was 
discharged for Misconduct-Pattern of Minor Disciplinary 
Infractions with service characterized as general (under 
honorable conditions) in the grade of airman.  He was credited 
with 2 years, 4 months and 14 days of total active service.

On 6 Feb 95, the applicant submitted a DD Form 293, Application 
for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces 
of the United States asking for an upgrade to his discharge.  On 
7 Apr 95, the applicant made a personal appearance without 
counsel before the AFDRB.  On 13 Apr 95, the AFDRB considered 
and denied the applicant’s appeal for upgrade of his discharge 
to honorable.  The AFDRB found that neither the evidence of 
record nor that provided by the applicant substantiated an 
inequity or impropriety which would justify a change of 
discharge.  On 8 May 95, the applicant was notified of the 
AFDRB’s decision.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) indicated that on the basis of the 
information provided, they were unable to locate an arrest 
record.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice 
of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice 
that occurred in the discharge processing.  Although the 
applicant contends the AFDRB did not review the letter submitted 
by his ADC, dated 25 Oct 88 or his statement requesting help, 
according to the AFDRB Examiner’s Brief dated 29 Mar 95, both 
letters were reviewed by the AFDRB.  Based on the available 
evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with 
the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and 
within the commander's discretionary authority.  The applicant 
has provided no evidence, which would lead us to believe the 
characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions 
of the governing regulation, or unduly harsh.  In the interest 
of justice, we considered upgrading the characterization of the 
applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, after 
considering his overall record of service, and lack of post-
service information we are not persuaded the characterization of 
the applicant’s discharge warrants an upgrade to honorable on 
this basis.  In view of the above and in the absence of evidence 
to the contrary, we find no basis upon which 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-03565 in Executive Session on 27 May 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
      			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jul 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.




								
								Panel Chair