RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05156
	XXXXXXX 	COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge should have been upgraded to show completion of a 
two-year tour so that he is eligible for Department of Veterans 
Affairs (DVA) benefits; (housing, grants, disabilities etc …).  
He was released 22 days before completing the two years which 
would have allowed him eligibility for these benefits.

He did not leave the military of his own free will.  He was 
discharged due to alcohol abuse which was diagnosed in 1986.  He 
began drinking due to the loss of his aunt who was the one who 
cared for him before entering the military.  While in the 
military, he began to have problems with his spouse which led to 
more drinking.

He was young and had no idea how this would affect his future. 
Being released 22 days shy of completing his tour so that he 
could be eligible in the future seems deliberate and unjust.  He 
only asks that all reasonable doubt be applied and 
reconsideration be given to upgrade his discharge.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 4 Apr 85, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for 
a period of four years.  

On 17 Feb 87, the squadron commander notified the applicant of 
administrative discharge action for a pattern of misconduct, 
conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  For a full 
list of the offenses, please see the commander’s notification 
letter at Exhibit B.  After consulting with counsel, the 
applicant submitted statements in his own behalf.  The staff 
judge advocate found the case file legally sufficient and 
recommended the applicant receive a general discharge.  On 
5 Mar 87, the discharge authority approved the general 
discharge.

On 6 Mar 87, the applicant was discharged with service 
characterized as general (under honorable conditions).  He was 
credited with 1 year, 11 months, and 3 days of active duty 
service.  

Other relevant facts pertaining to this application are at 
Exhibit B.  Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts 
in this Record of Proceedings.

________________________________________________________________

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 note the 
applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge; however, it 
appears that he would like to be credited with two years of 
active duty service.  Based on the available evidence of record, 
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, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses 
committed.  Considering the applicant’s overall record of 
service and the numerous infractions which led to his 
administrative separation, we are not persuaded that a change to 
the record is warranted.  In addition, we found no evidence of 
wrongdoing on the part of the Air Force by separating the 
applicant short of reaching a 2-year threshold to qualify for 
DVA benefits.  Therefore, 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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2012-05156 in Executive Session on 15 Aug 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Oct 12. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.




                                   Acting Panel Chair