RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00139
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
      APPLICANT        COUNSEL:  VFW

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  be
upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

If he had remained in the Air Force he would have  been  a  productive
member in society.  Since leaving the Air  Force  he  has  received  a
bachelors and a masters degree.  He has been a notary public for eight
years.  He is a high school teacher and has worked as a state employee
for over seven years, five years as contract officer.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 6 July 1978, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as  an
airman basic for a period of four years.

The applicant was placed in alcohol rehabilitation in  August  1979,
July  1980  and  November  1980  due  to  several  alcohol   related
incidents.

On 24 November 1978, the applicant received an Article 15 for  being
in an off-limits area.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture  of
pay.

On 22 January 1979, the applicant received an Article 15  for  being
drunk and disorderly on station.   His  punishment  consisted  of  a
forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction to base.

The applicant received an Article 15  on  11  July  1980  for  drunk
driving  and  for  being  drunk  and  disorderly.   His   punishment
consisted of a  suspended  reduction  from  airman  first  class  to
airman, forfeiture of pay and restriction to base.

An undated court-martial charge sheet  indicates  that  five  court-
martial  charges  and  specifications  were  preferred  against  the
applicant for failing to obey a  lawful  order  to  halt,  resisting
arrest, using abusive language and striking the  arresting  officer,
and operating a car while drunk.

On 25 November 1980, after consulting with  counsel,  the  applicant
requested a discharge for the good  of  the  service  and  submitted
statements in his own behalf.

The commander indicated in his recommendation that  the  applicant’s
request for discharge should be  approved  due  to  the  applicant’s
problems with alcohol  and  that  if  the  applicant’s  request  for
discharge was approved he should be issued an Other  Than  Honorable
Conditions  Discharge  Certificate.    The   commander   noted   the
applicant’s  enrollment  in  the  Phase  IV  of  the  Base   Alcohol
Rehabilitation Program (which was  the  third  attempt  to  aid  the
applicant in controlling his alcohol problem) and he  had  obviously
failed rehabilitation and to retain him would not be in the best  of
the Air Force.

A legal review was conducted on 23 December 1980 in which the  staff
judge advocate recommended the applicant’s request to be  discharged
for the good of  the  service  be  approved  and  the  applicant  be
discharged under other than honorable conditions.

On 23 December 1980, the discharge authority approved the discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 24 December 1980, in the grade of airman
first class with service characterized as under other than honorable
conditions (UOTHC),  in  accordance  with  AFR  39-12  (request  for
discharge for the good of service).  He served a total of 2 years, 5
months and 19 days of active service.

The applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge  Review
Board (AFDRB) to have his  under  other  than  honorable  conditions
(UOTHC) discharge upgraded to honorable.  They denied his request on
12 January 1982.

The applicant submitted a request to the  Air  Force  Personnel  Board
(AFPB) to change his reenlistment code.  The AFPB denied  his  request
on 22 October 1985.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is  attached
at 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.  Also, 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:

The applicant’s counsel requests the applicant’s case be reviewed  and
considered for post-service clemency (Exhibit I).

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of record, we are not persuaded to  recommend  upgrading  the
discharge.  Based on the documentation in the applicant's records,  it
appears that the processing of the applicant’s request  for  discharge
for the good of the service and the characterization of the  discharge
were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.
 We have considered the applicant’s overall quality of service and his
post-service  accomplishments,  however,  in  view  of  the   numerous
instances of misconduct while the applicant was on active duty and the
continued acts of misconduct after leaving  active  duty,  we  do  not
believe that clemency is warranted.   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 BC-
2003-00139 in Executive Session on 13 May 2003 under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                       Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
                       Mr. E. David Hoard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Feb 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Mar 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, undated.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Mar 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, Counsel’s Response, 9 Apr 03.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Apr 03, w/atch.




                                        MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                        Panel Chair