RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00106

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has been a productive member of society since his discharge.  
He has held progressively responsible positions of employment 
and has attained significant educational accomplishments.  He 
accepts complete responsibility for the circumstances that 
precipitated his discharge, which arose from intense anxiety 
that caused him to indulge in alcohol to self-medicate.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 06 Jan 
89.

On 14 Sep 92, the applicant was notified by his commander of his 
intent to recommend a general discharge for unsatisfactory 
performance under the provisions of AFR 39-10, para 5-32.  The 
reason for this action was that he failed to successfully 
complete Tract 4 of the Substance Abuse Rehabilitation and 
Treatment (SART) program.  The following facts led up to his 
discharge: 

	a. On or about 26 Apr 92, the applicant was arrested by 
local police for erratic driving and suspicion of driving while 
under the influence of alcohol. 

	b. On 04 Jun 92, the applicant was convicted for reckless 
driving, for which he received 3 years of probation and fines in 
excess of $600.00.  For this misconduct, the applicant received 
a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), and was placed on the control 
roster. 

	c. On or about 11 Aug 92, the applicant refused to 
participate in and enter the in-patient Alcohol Rehabilitation 
Center (ARC).       

On 25 Sep 92, the applicant was furnished a general discharge, 
and was credited with 3 years, 8 months, and 20 days of active 
service.

On 26 Oct 93, the applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge 
Review Board (AFDRB) to have his discharge upgraded to 
Honorable.  On 27 Jan 94, the AFDRB denied his request, 
concluding that discharge was consistent with the procedural and 
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority and that he was 
provided full administrative due process.
 
On 28 Apr 14, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.


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 an 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.  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, unduly harsh, or 
disproportionate to the offenses committed.  In the interest of 
justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on 
clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is 
sufficient for us to conclude that the applicant’s post-service 
activities warrant such consideration.  Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought. 

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 our understanding of the issues involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.


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-2014-00106 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 14 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Apr 14.