RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02943
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His commander did not conduct a complete and  thorough  investigation.
Medical issues were  not  considered;  i.e.,  depression,  alcoholism,
treatment, and professional intervention for mental illness.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a  personal  statement
and a certificate.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 May 1982.

Applicant was progressively promoted to  the  grade  of  airman  first
class on 12 May 1983.

APR profile since 1983 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING           EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

       12 May 83       9
       12 May 84       7

On 27 June 1984, the commander notified  the  applicant  that  he  was
recommending discharge for a pattern of misconduct.  He recommended  a
general discharge.  Basis for the action was  he  had  three  alcohol-
related incidents that  resulted  in  Articles  15.   He  received  an
Article 15 on 8 August 1982 for resisting apprehension,  assault,  and
drunk and disorderly on station.  Punishment consisted  of  forfeiture
of $125 per month for 2 months, 14 days extra duty and  restricted  to
base for 14 days.  On 24 January 1984, he received an Article  15  for
failure to obey a lawful order.  He was reduced  to  airman,  and  was
ordered to forfeit of $150 and  to  perform  7  days  of  correctional
custody.  He received his third Article 15 on 4 June  1984  for  being
disrespectful in language toward a superior NCO and incapacitation for
the proper performance of duties due to alcohol intoxication.  He  was
reduced to airman basic, forfeited $139 and performed 14 days of extra
duty.  Evaluation  in  the  Mental  Health  Clinic  in  December  1983
diagnosed him as a problem  drinker  and  he  entered  an  out-patient
alcohol rehabilitation program.  He stayed in the program  until  June
1984.  After consulting with counsel, he did  not  submit  statements.
The  base  legal  office  reviewed  the  case  and  found  it  legally
sufficient to support the discharge.  His commanders did not recommend
probation and rehabilitation (P&R) because the applicant  consistently
demonstrated a lack of motivation and desire to rehabilitate  himself.
On 30 July 1984, the Discharge Authority approved the  separation  and
ordered a general discharge without P&R.

The applicant, while  serving  in  the  grade  of  airman  basic,  was
discharged from the Air Force on 3 August 1984 under the provisions of
AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Pattern of Conduct Prejudicial to  Good  Order
and Discipline) with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.
 He served 2 years, 2 months and 22 days on active duty.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report  which  is
attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant states that there is no evidence in either
the applicant’s  personnel  record,  performance  reports  or  service
medical records that he may have exhibited signs of  depression.   His
performance reports reflect excellent duty performance.  He  was  also
evaluated by mental health in relation to his  alcohol  abuse  and  no
diagnosis of depression was made, only problem drinking.

Although alcoholism has been  called  a  disease  and  is  treated  by
behavioral health specialists, individuals with this addiction are not
excused from the consequences of behavior relating to  alcohol  abuse.
Drug and alcohol abuse are grounds for administrative  discharge  from
the Air Force.  Illegal drug abuse is misconduct.   Alcohol  abuse  in
and of itself is not misconduct.   Driving  while  intoxicated,  being
drunk and disorderly while on station,  and  being  incapacitated  for
duty is misconduct that is not mitigated by a diagnosis of alcoholism.
 Failure to remain sober after an alcohol rehabilitation  program,  or
failure to complete a program is grounds for discharge as well.

Action  and  disposition  in  this  case  are  proper  and   equitable
reflecting compliance with Air Force  directives  that  implement  the
law.

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no  change  in  the
records is warranted.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent  with
the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion  of
the  Discharge  Authority.   Therefore,  they  recommend   denial   of
applicant’s request.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 14  February  2003,  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  In
addition, letters soliciting information concerning  his  post-service
activities and providing the FBI report for comment were forwarded  to
the applicant on 26 March 2003 and 22 April 2003.  All  the  foregoing
correspondence was returned to this office as  undeliverable  with  no
forwarding address.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After reviewing the evidence  of
record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error
or that he has been the victim of an injustice.  His  contentions  are
noted; however, in our opinion, the detailed comments provided by  the
appropriate Air Force offices adequately  address  those  allegations.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence by the applicant indicating that
the information in his discharge case file  was  erroneous,  that  his
commanders  abused  their  discretionary  authority,   or   that   his
substantial rights were  violated,  we  have  no  basis  to  find  the
applicant’s discharge was erroneous or  unjust  at  the  time  it  was
effected.

4.  We note the information contained in the FBI  report  showing  the
applicant’s  last  involvement  with   law   enforcement   authorities
apparently occurred in 1997.  We also noted the  information  provided
by the applicant indicating he underwent Substance  Abuse  residential
treatment in 2002.  In  the  absence  of  evidence  by  the  applicant
indicating his discharge was erroneous  or  unjust,  the  only  option
available to this  Board  by  which  favorable  consideration  of  his
request is possible is clemency.  Generally, this Board may  favorably
consider a request for clemency  in  the  form  of  an  upgrade  of  a
discharge  based  on  the  submission  of  evidence  attesting  to   a
successful post-service adjustment  showing  that  the  applicant  has
exhibited the characteristics associated with good citizenship over an
extended period of time.  In this case, it appears this applicant  has
begun to make some effort to overcome his past  patterns  of  behavior
and to establish himself as a productive member in the community.   We
encourage the applicant  to  continue  his  efforts  in  this  regard.
However, in view of the short duration of his present  good  behavior,
the evidence provided is not sufficient to warrant  clemency  at  this
time.  Should the applicant establish a  record  of  good  citizenship
over an extended period of time, he may, of course,  provide  evidence
to this Board to establish that fact and  request  reconsideration  of
his request.  Without such evidence, we are not inclined to  favorably
consider the applicant’s request at this time.

_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 11 June 2003, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                 Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
                 Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Sep 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 15 Jan 03.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 Feb 03.
      Exhibit F. Letters, SAF/MRBR and AFBCMR, dated 14 Feb 03,
                 26 Mar 03 and 22 Apr 03.




                             MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                             Panel Chair