RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                            DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01224
                                        INDEX CODE: 110.00
                                  COUNSEL: NONE

                                        HEARING DESIRED: NO

____________________________________________________________________________
____

APPLICANT REQUEST THAT:

1. The Article 15 imposed on 24 Jun 96 for violation of Article 134,
(Failure to Pay American Express indebtedness) Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) and Article 15 imposed on 16 Nov 96 for violation of Article
86, (Failure to Go)) UCMJ, be expunged from his records.

2. The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for period 31 Dec 94
through
3 Aug 96 be declared void and removed from his records.

3. His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to
honorable and the reason for his separation and his separation code be
changed.

____________________________________________________________________________
____

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His refusal to back down from the problems surrounding his initial
assignment in the recruiting service was the beginning of his ordeal.  By
standing his ground and insisting on proper resolution of his assignment
issue he irked members of his organization and was labeled as a
troublemaker.  His squadron commander, first sergeant, and superintendent
accepted this unwarranted reputation and proceeded to let it color their
perceptions.  Instead of assisting him in the fulfillment of his duties,
they began to actively interfere in both his professional and personal
life.  By giving him the three Letters of Reprimand (LORs), they set the
groundwork for the first Article 15. When he was finally pushed almost to
the point of a nervous breakdown, he was manipulated into self-identifying
his drinking problem as his only source of relief.  Once he completed his
rehabilitation treatment and returned to work, he began to produce numbers
that exceeded all expectations, but instead of praise he was resented.
When the lack of support in meeting his aftercare requirements came to
light, his superiors completely ignored the failure of the treatment
facilities to return his call and contact attempts.  Instead, it was used
as the basis for another completely unfounded Article 15. All this laid the
framework for his involuntary discharge from the Air Force.  His
organization acted in an unwarranted and malicious manner.  Because he
stood up for what he believed to be right and refused to back down, he was
labeled a troublemaker and used as an example to present to others who
might do the same and was finally discharged.

In support of his application, the applicant provides a personal statement
and numerous documents from his personal and military records {Exhibit A).

____________________________________________________________________________
___

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 1 Dec 89. He served as a
Personnel specialist for 5 years and 9 months and a Recruiter for 1 year
and 9 months.  He was discharged on 23 May 97 with a service
characterization of general {under honorable conditions), a separation code
of "GPD" and reentry code of "2B."  He was credited with 7 years, 5 months
and 23 days total active service.

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the
appropriate offices of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to
recite these facts in this record of proceedings.

____________________________________________________________________________
__

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Associate Chief, Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM reviewed the
case with respect to the expunging of the Article 15s and the upgrade of
the applicant's discharge and recommended denial. JAJM states that contrary
to the applicant's allegation that he made legitimate efforts to meet his
financial obligation to American Express {AmEx), it is clear that during
the period of July through October 1995, the applicant received more than
$6500 in reimbursements from the Air Force for expenses incurred in his
move to Washington and applied only a small fraction of those monies to the
payment of his American Express debt.  The applicant began charging the
expenses of his move to his AmEx card in June 1995.  He made one payment of
$1054 in July 1995 {when the outstanding balance due was $2,461.79) and a
second payment of $50 in October 1995 {when the balance owed was
$3,729.83).  Despite agreeing with AmEx to make minimum $50 payments
thereafter, the applicant made no further payments from November 1995
through June 1996 when the Article 15 action was initiated.  During that
period, the applicant was repeatedly counseled by his supervisors
concerning his financial responsibilities.  He received professional
financial counseling on at least two occasions from the McChord AFB Family
Support Center {during which, he was determined to have sufficient
resources to satisfy his debts).  He was also provided travel and advance
pay in addition to approximately $1300 from Air Force Aid. Given the level
of assistance and guidance the applicant received, his commander was
certainly justified in determining that the applicant's failure to pay any
part of his outstanding AmEx debt for more than six months was dishonorable
within the meaning of Article 134.

JAJM states the applicant conceded he did not attend the mandatory alcohol
program aftercare meetings that were the subject of his second Article 15
action. Contrary to his assertion, however, that he had tacit, if not,
explicit approval from his counselor for his failure to attend, the
counselor did not excuse the applicant's attendance.  He merely required
him to call and inform him of the reason for any nonattendance.  The
applicant did not even comply with that instruction, failing to call or
visit the counselor on 26 Aug, 2 Sep,
9 Sep, 16 Sep, and 23 Sep 96.  The applicant was re-advised of the
mandatory nature of the meetings by his supervisor on 24 Sep 96, and
instructed to attend the next meeting on 30 September and to contact the
supervisor afterwards confirming his attendance.  The applicant failed to
attend that meeting and did not call his counselor or his supervisor.
While the applicant claims he was too busy to attend these meetings, his
failure to attend was not excused.  He was repeatedly and directly informed
that attendance was both a mandatory and important part of his
rehabilitation program.  The evidence supports the commander's
determination that the applicant's failure to go to those appointments was
unexcused and without authority.

JAJM states that the commander's findings that the applicant committed all
offenses are well supported by the evidence.  The applicant's arguments
were fully presented to his commander during the Article 15 action,
evaluated again in the appellate process, and addressed before the
discharge board for a third time.  In each case, the reviewer or finder of
fact rejected those arguments as unpersuasive and determined the applicant
had committed the charged offenses.  The applicant has raised no new
matters of law or fact that warrant either a contrary determination or the
relief sought herein.

Therefore, JAJM is of the opinion the applicant is guilty of the offenses
charged. The punishments were not disproportionate to the offenses,
particularly given their repetitious nature and the extensive unsuccessful
supervisory efforts made to obtain compliance in both situations.  The
Article 15s should only be removed if the applicant was, in fact, not
guilty of the offenses charged.  The evidence submitted by the applicant
neither exonerates him or mandates the relief requested.  The requested
relief should be denied {Exhibit C).

The Chief, Inquires/BCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB in addressing the issue of
removal of the two Articles 15s deferred to the recommendation of
AFLSA/JAJM.  With respect to the Enlisted Performance Report closing 3
August 96, DPPPWB states that since the applicant received two article 15s
resulting in a final grade reduction to AIC {E-3) and a general discharge,
any action concerning the contested report with regard to supplemental
consideration is moot at this time {Exhibit D).

The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPAB, states that the
Administrative Discharge Review Board {DRB) held on 24 Mar 97 found that
the applicant did not commit the allegations as stated in each of the three
Letters of Reprimand {LOR).  Therefore, since the EPR closing 3 Aug 96
specifically cites only one of the three allegations, DPPPAB recommends
removing the last bullet in Section V., Rater's Comments: "Failed to report
to a mandatory formation for a Delayed Enlistment Program Ceremony."  This
refers to the 28 Feb 96 LOR for an incident occurring on 17 Feb 96. Other
comments in the EPR do not specifically refer to the other two allegations.
Based on the evidence provided, DPPPAB recommends partial approval as
stated {Exhibit E).

The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the
case and recommended denial. DPPRS states that the Administrative Discharge
Board found that the applicant had been referred to a program of
rehabilitation for alcohol abuse and failed to successfully complete the
program due to his refusal to participate in the program. Subsequently, the
board recommended he be given a general discharge.  The discharge authority
approved the recommendation and directed that he be given a general {under
honorable conditions) discharge.

Based upon the documentation on file, DPPRS believes the discharge was
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation and was within the sound discretion of the discharge
authority.  Inasmuch as the applicant has not submitted any new evidence or
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge process,
nor provided any facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge, a change in
his separation code or a change in the narrative reason for separation,
DPPRS recommends the applicant's records remain the same and his request
denied {Exhibit F).

____________________________________________________________________________
__

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and reiterated and
elaborated on his initial contentions.  He states that as an act of
reprisal by his superiors for standing his ground concerning his initial
assignment as a recruiter, he was labeled the proverbial "bad guy",
"alcohol dependent" and a "treatment failure" which led to his eventual
discharge from the Air Force {Exhibit H).

____________________________________________________________________________
_

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice warranting partial relief.  We
believe, as the Administrative Discharge Review Board (DRB) has indicated,
that the applicant did not commit the allegations as stated in each of the
three LOR's.  Therefore, since the EPR closing 3 Aug 96 specifically cites
only one of the three allegations, we recommend removing the last bullet in
Section V., Rater's Comments: "Failed to report to a mandatory formation
for a Delayed Enlistment Program Ceremony" from the EPR in question.

With respect to removal of the Article 15's for violation of Article 134 of
the UCMJ, "Failure to pay American Express indebtedness" and Article 86 of
the UCMJ, "Failure to Go", we are not persuaded by the evidence presented
that relief is warranted and adopt the opinion of JAJM as our findings in
regard to this part of the applicant's request.

Inasmuch as the applicant's failure to successfully complete the program of
rehabilitation for alcohol abuse due to his refusal to participate in the
program subsequently resulted in his general (under honorable conditions)
discharge, the Board is of the opinion the discharge was consistent with
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and
was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  Therefore,
based on the evidence of record, we find no compelling reason upon which to
favorably consider a change to the applicant's separation code, the
narrative reason for separation or an upgrade to his discharge.

____________________________________________________________________________
____

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the bullet in Section V., Rater's
Comments: "Failed to report to a mandatory formation for a Delayed
Enlistment Program Ceremony" in the EPR for period ending 3 August 96 be
removed.

____________________________________________________________________________
____

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 24 October 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Acting Panel Chair
Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
Mr. Daniel F. Wenker, Member

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following
documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 May 00 w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 14 Jun 00.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 29 Jun 00.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 17 Jul 00.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 Aug 00.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 25 Aug 00.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant's Response, dated 30 Aug 00.




                                  PATRICIA D. VESTAL
                                  Acting Panel Chair


AFBCMR 00-01224




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XX, be corrected to show that the bullet in Section V., Rater's
Comments: "Failed to report to a mandatory formation for a Delayed
Enlistment Program Ceremony" in the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for
period ending 3 August 96 be removed from his records.







                                  JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                  Director
                                  Air Force Review Boards Agency