RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01369
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
      APPLICANT        COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He developed alcoholism at an early age.  He  did  not  heed  warnings
from supervisors and peers.  It was years before he  was  honest  with
himself about his alcoholism and sought help.

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 13  February  1984  in
the grade of airman basic for a period of 4 years.

On 20 February 1986,  applicant  was  notified  of  his  commander's
intent to initiate discharge action against him  for  a  pattern  of
conduct prejudicial to good  order  and  discipline.   The  specific
reasons for the discharge action were as follows:

      a.  On 25 June  1985,  the  applicant  received  a  letter  of
reprimand for excess speed while on duty.

      b.  The applicant received a record of  individual  counseling
on 13 July 1985 for failure to meet scheduled appointment.

      c.  On 17 July 1985 he received another record  of  individual
counseling for failure to meet scheduled appointment.

      d.  On 7 August 1985,  the  applicant  received  a  letter  of
reprimand for being late for duty.

      e.  The applicant received a letter of reprimand,  unfavorable
information file and placed on the control roster on 29 August 1985,
for being late for duty with alcohol on his breath.

      f.  On 14 February 1986, the applicant received  a  letter  of
reprimand, unfavorable information file and placed  on  the  control
roster  driving  without  headlights  and  under  the  influence  of
alcohol.

      g.  The applicant received an Article 15 on 19  February  1986
for  assaulting  a  female  airman.   His  punishment  consisted  of
reduction to airman basic, fined $600 and restricted to the base for
60 days.

The commander advised  applicant  of  his  right  to  consult  legal
counsel; present his case to an administrative discharge  board;  be
represented by legal counsel at a board hearing;  submit  statements
in his own behalf in addition to, or in lieu of, the board  hearing;
or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for  discharge  action
that he repeatedly counseled the applicant with negative results.

On 20 February 1986, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived
his right to submit a statement.

A legal review was conducted on 21 February 1986 in which the  staff
judge advocate  recommended  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  a
general discharge with no probation and rehabilitation.

A resume of applicant's performance reports follows:

            PERIOD ENDING         OVERALL EVALUATION

                 13 Feb 85              9
                 13 Feb 86              9

Applicant was discharged on 26 February 1986, in the grade of airman
basic with an under honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge,  in
accordance  with  AFR  39-10,  paragraph  5-47b  for  a  pattern  of
misconduct consisting of  conduct  prejudicial  to  good  order  and
discipline.  He served a total of 2 years  and  14  days  of  active
service.

The applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge  Review
Board (AFDRB) to  have  his  under  honorable  conditions  (general)
discharge  upgraded  to  honorable.   They  denied  his  applicant's
request on 15 November 1991.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of investigation,
Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the
data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest  record  (Exhibit
C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not  submitted  any  evidence  nor
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of
his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's  file,
they believe his discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulations  of  that  time.
Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of  the  discharge
authority.  Although the applicant provided character  statements,  he
did not provide any facts to warrant  an  upgrade  of  his  discharge.
Based on the information and  evidence  provided  they  recommend  the
applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
24 May 2002, for review and response.  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 of 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 agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an  error  or  an  injustice.   Based  on  the  documentation  in  the
applicant's records, it appears that the processing of  the  discharge
and  the  characterization  of  the  discharge  were  appropriate  and
accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 02-
01369 in Executive Session on 30 July 2002 under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Edward C. Koenig III, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 May 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Available Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 May 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 May 02.




                                        EDWARD C. KOENIG III
                                        Panel Chair