RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03277
            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:

He only had one civil incident, driving  under  the  influence  of  alcohol,
while stationed at Lowry AFB, CO.  However, he did serve honorably while  in
the Air Force.  While he was assigned to  Lakenheath  AB,  England,  he  was
responsible for the readiness of the wing  commander's  staff  car  and  the
driver for base VIPs and their spouses during a time  when  terrorists  were
blowing up staff cars.  He had honorable responsibilities while at the  same
time receiving counseling for an alcohol problem  which  eventually  led  to
his discharge.

In support of his request,  applicant  provided  a  copy  of  his  discharge
evaluation officer's  recommendation;  his  DD  Form  293,  Application  for
Review of Discharge or  Dismissal  from  the  Armed  Forces  of  the  United
States; his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release  or  Discharge  from  Active
Duty;  and,  his  administrative  discharge  legal  review.   His   complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force  on  8  Aug  79  and  was
progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class.

On 1 Dec 81, the applicant  was  notified  by  his  commander  that  he  was
recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force under  the  provisions
of AFM 39-12, paragraph 2-4e.  The reasons for this action were his  failure
to cooperate in the alcohol rehabilitation  program  and  his  inability  to
meet minimum behavior standards.  Specifically, on 29 Jul 80, he received  a
Letter of Reprimand (LOR) following a  civil  conviction  of  driving  while
intoxicated; on  29  Dec  80,  he  received  a  letter  from  the  NCO  club
concerning his conduct and damage  to  club  property;  on  28  Jan  81,  he
received an LOR for failure to follow proper driving procedures;  on  4  May
81, he received a Record of Counseling for his bed not  being  made;  on  15
Oct 81, he received an LOR for having a female in the dorm after  visitation
hours; on 29 Oct 81, he  received  an  LOR  for  nine  checks  returned  for
insufficient funds.  On 7 Jul 81, he received nonjudicial  punishment  under
Article 15 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice for failure  to  report
to duty on time.  He was ordered to forfeit $100 of his pay and  received  a
suspended reduction to the grade of airman.  On 10  Sep  81,  his  suspended
reduction to the grade  of  airman  was  vacated  for  being  disorderly  on
station.  On 13 Nov 81, he received another Article 15 for being  disorderly
on station.  He was reduced to the grade of airman  basic,  was  ordered  to
forfeit $100 of his pay, and was ordered to perform 30 days extra duty.

The applicant was advised of his rights in this matter and  elected  not  to
provide  matters  on  his  own  behalf.   A  discharge  evaluation   officer
conducted an evaluation of the case and recommended that  the  applicant  be
discharged, with a general discharge, without probation  or  rehabilitation.
The assistant staff judge advocate reviewed the  case  file  and  found  the
case to be legally sufficient.   On  18  Dec  81,  the  discharge  authority
concurred with  the  recommendation  and  directed  that  the  applicant  be
discharged with a general discharge  without  probation  or  rehabilitation.
He was discharged on 4 Jan 82.  He served 2 years, 4 months, and 27 days  on
active duty.

The applicant's request that the narrative  reason  (Misconduct-Drug  Abuse)
for his discharge be changed, has been administratively  corrected  to  read
"Failure in an Alcohol, Abuse Treatment and Rehabilitation Program."

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant's request.  DPPRS states  that
the  discharge  was  consistent  with   the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation and the applicant  did  not  submit
any new evidence or identify any errors in his  discharge  processing.   The
discharge was within the discretion  of  the  discharge  authority  and  the
applicant provided no facts warranting an upgrade  of  the  discharge.   The
DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that AFPC made corrections to reflect the  true  nature  of
his discharge; however, they added additional comments in item 18  (remarks)
and in item 24 (character of discharge).  The changes that  were  made  have
taken a discharge that he was already ashamed of and made it appear just  as
bad as it did before.  He deeply regrets that  he  did  not  deal  with  his
alcohol problem at the time.  He has been sober now for over 7 years and  is
simply wanting his  discharge  to  be  changed  to  honorable  and  for  the
narrative reason to reflect the truth, that he had an alcohol  problem,  not
a drug problem.  He believes that he served  to  the  best  of  his  ability
while on active duty but just did not have what it took  to  quit  drinking.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 a thorough review  of  the  evidence
of record, we find no evidence of an error in this case and do not find  his
uncorroborated assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the  rationale
provided by the Air Force.  Accordingly,  we  agree  with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility  and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that he  has  not  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.  We  note  the  narrative  reason  for  his
discharge has been administratively corrected  to  reflect  "Failure  in  an
Alcohol,  Abuse  Treatment   and   Rehabilitation   Program"   rather   than
"Misconduct-Drug   Abuse."    The   applicant   now   contends   that    the
administrative corrections to his DD Form 214 make it appear just as bad  as
it did before.  It is our opinion that the administrative changes that  were
made are correct and appropriately reflect the true nature of his  discharge
from the Air Force.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead us  to
believe that further change  to  his  narrative  reason  for  separation  is
warranted.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  persuasive  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  Docket  Number  02-03277  in
Executive Session on 29 Jan 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
      Ms. Martha Evans, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Nov 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Dec 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Dec 02.




                                   PHILIP SHEUERMAN
                                   Panel Chair