RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2017-00347

	COUNSEL:  DAVID C. SHARP
	
	HEARING:  YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He became an alcoholic while in the military and every instance of his misconduct was alcohol related.  He never received counseling for his addiction while in the military. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 4 Aug 77.   

On or about 22 Feb 80, the applicant willfully brought alcoholic beverages into his duty area.  For this misconduct, he received Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), reduction in grade to airman basic, and forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for one month.  On this same date, the applicant was interviewed for a Drug/Alcohol Evaluation.  

On 28 Feb 80, the Drug/Alcohol Abuse Control Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) determined the applicant had a serious drinking problem and recommended he enter the Alcohol Rehabilitation Program, abstain from alcohol and attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings on a frequent and regular basis.  

On 5 Mar 80, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his discharge for frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities, under the provisions of AFR 39-12, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The reasons for the action included sleeping on post while posted as a sentinel, being drunk on station and refusing to cooperate with a law enforcement officer, disobedience of a lawful order, and dereliction of duty; all in violation of various articles of the UCMJ; for which he received a Letter of Reprimand and three Article 15s.  The commander did not recommend the applicant for probation and rehabilitation due to the poor prognosis for rehabilitation.  On this same date, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge.  By undated letter, the applicant elected to submit a statement in his behalf.  

On 17 Mar 80, an evaluation officer determined the applicant was not a suitable candidate for rehabilitation and recommended he be furnished a General (under honorable conditions) discharge.  On 21 Mar 80, the Staff Judge Advocate found the case to be legally sufficient.  On 26 Mar 80, the discharge authority approved the commander’s recommendation directing the applicant’s administrative discharge without the offer of probation or rehabilitation.  On 27 Mar 80, the applicant was furnished a General (under honorable conditions) discharge for Misconduct—Frequent Involvement with Civil/Mil Authorities-Evaluation Officer and was credited with 2 years, 7 months, and 24 days of total active service.

On 29 Sep 80, the applicant submitted a DD Form 293, Application for Review of Discharge or Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States, requesting his General (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.  On 5 Aug 81, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable and concluded that his overall quality of service was accurately reflected by his current character of discharge and should not be changed.  

A request for post-service was forwarded to the applicant on 28 Sep 17, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibit D and E. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM makes no recommendation, but states there is no basis to set aside the three NJP actions the applicant received prior to his administrative discharge.  A complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denying the application.  There is no evidence of an error or injustice in the discharge processing.  The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  A complete advisory is at Exhibit E. 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 23 Feb 18 for comment (Exhibit F).  In response, the applicant submitted documentation which indicated that according to the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a search of the fingerprints provided by the applicant revealed no prior arrest data at the FBI, effective 3 Mar 18.  In addition, he submitted character reference letters.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an injustice.  It appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the commander’s discretion.  Nor was the discharge unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  While the applicant states he never received any treatment for alcohol while in the military, based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicant voluntarily participated in Alcoholics Anonymous, as a step to alleviate his problem, as pointed out in his undated rebuttal statement to the discharge notification.  Moreover, the applicant states he was sent to many drug and alcohol abuse classes, in addition to attending a one-day seminar, as noted on his DD Form 293, Application for Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces.   Therefore, we conclude that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.  In the interest of justice, the Board considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, given the evidence presented, the Board finds no basis to do so.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

The application was adjudicated without a personal appearance.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2017-00347 in Executive Session on 31 May 18:

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atch, dated 10 Jan 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Post Service Clemency Letter, w/atch, dated 28 Sep 17.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 14 Feb 18.
Exhibit E:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 22 Feb 18.
Exhibit F:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 23 Feb 18.
Exhibit G:	Applicant’s response, w/atchs, dated 23 Mar 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.