RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

            INDEX CODE 110.02 110.03  108.04
IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-00462

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1991 general discharge be set aside and he be returned  to  active
duty or he be given a medical discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been given an opportunity to overcome his  deficiencies
before discharge action. All  his  off-duty  misconduct  was  alcohol-
related, yet his commander thought he did not have a drinking problem.
At no time was his duty performance found to be less than outstanding.
He was in the military for more than  12  years  before  the  off-duty
misconduct began. He readily admits now to having domestic and serious
drinking problems. The  commander  had  an  obligation  to  ensure  he
received proper treatment, but this did not happen. He was  prosecuted
and disciplined rather than given the proper medical treatment for his
condition. His spouse drove him to  drink.  He  had  no  intention  of
taking his wife, an uneducated former bar girl,  back  to  the  United
States. The Air Force, on its own volition,  processed  her  paperwork
even though they knew  she  was  responsible  for  his  problems.  The
disabling effects of chronic alcoholism should not be  considered  the
result of willful misconduct. He gave the Air Force the best years  of
his life and was let down when he really needed help.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The following information was extracted from the applicant’s  military
medical and personnel records, the Air Force  Discharge  Review  Board
(DRB) examiner’s brief,  and  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)
medical records.

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 Dec 73.  When  he
reenlisted on 15 Oct 82 for a period of six  years  in  the  grade  of
staff sergeant (SSgt), he had eight years, ten months and  eight  days
of prior active service.

The applicant’s performance reports have overall ratings in the 7,  8,
or 9 range (old system).  Many of the reports, even as early as  1976,
contain comments suggesting his judgment,  dedication,  acceptance  of
responsibility,  and/or  management   of   personal   affairs   needed
improvement.

Based on his performance reports (Exhibit B), the applicant was  first
stationed as an administrative NCO at Clark  AB,  Philippines,  around
Nov 78 and remained there until around Mar 83.  While  there,  he  was
absent without leave (AWOL) from 20-22 Dec 82. He apparently failed to
report for duty on 20 Dec 82 and, after a “pick up” order was  issued,
turned himself in on 22 Dec 82.

He was subsequently assigned to Castle AFB, CA,  and  denied  the  Air
Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM) for the period 6 Dec 82 to 2 Jul  83.
The award period includes the AWOL incident in  the  Philippines,  and
the  performance  reports  refer  to  the  adverse  affects   of   the
applicant’s  personal  problems  and   his   need   to   fulfill   the
responsibilities of an NCO.

The applicant returned to Clark AB, Philippines, in 1986.  During  the
period in question (1988-1991), the applicant was the  NCOIC,  Command
Post Administration, first with the XXX  Tactical  Airlift  Wing  (XXX
TAW) for about a year and then around 12 Sep 89 with the XXX  Military
Airlift Support Group (XXX MASG), both at Clark AB.

On 12 Sep 88, the applicant was counseled for  being  overdue  in  his
$79.84 payment to the Deferred Payment Plan Program  (DPPP)  with  the
Army/Air Force Exchange.

On the same day, the applicant was notified of  his  wing  commander's
intent to impose nonjudicial punishment for  unlawfully  grabbing  his
wife, twisting her by the ribs, throwing her on the floor, and  biting
her near her right eye and on her right thigh on 2 Sep 88. On  16  Sep
88, after consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to a
trial by court-martial, requested a personal appearance, but  did  not
submit a written presentation. On 19 Sep 88, the wing commander  found
him  guilty  and  imposed  punishment  of  14  days  of  extra   duty,
restriction to the base for  14  days,  and  reduction  from  SSgt  to
sergeant, suspended until 18 Mar 89. The applicant did not appeal  the
punishment and the Article 15 was filed in his Unfavorable Information
File (UIF).

A 27 Sep 88 Memo for the Record by the wing  commander  revealed  that
there were other domestic incidents, including one in Oct 86 when  the
applicant alleged his wife stabbed him in the back of the leg. He  did
not file charges. The wing commander added the applicant claimed  most
of the  incidents  were  caused  by  a  previous  relationship,  which
produced two children, and which was causing difficulty in the present
marriage. The first  sergeant  and  the  commander  visited  the  wife
shortly after the 2 Sep 88 incident and she stated the  applicant  was
not providing adequate money to  pay  debts  (utilities)  and  he  was
spending a lot of time in the street.  The  applicant  apparently  was
having $600.00 per month deducted from  his  pay  because  a  previous
spouse wrote $4,000 in bad checks. The  wing  commander  indicated  he
referred the applicant and  his  wife  to  the  Family  Advocacy.  The
applicant was also counseled that continued incidents of  this  nature
could result in discharge.

A Mental Health  Clinic  medical  entry  reports  that  the  applicant
completed all 12 sessions of the Anger Control Group sessions  from  1
Feb 89 to 19 Apr 89, the physical violence incident  was  in  apparent
remission, the treatment phase was completed, and no further treatment
was planned at that time.

On 4 May 89, the Army/Air Force Exchange  advised  the  applicant  was
overdue in his $88.84 payment to the DPPP. On 5 May 89, the  applicant
was advised that his NCO Open Mess account was 60 days delinquent  for
$136.60.

On 10 Aug 89, the wing commander denied the applicant  the  AFGCM  for
the period 3 Jul 86 to 18 Sep 90.

On 17 Nov 89, the applicant was apprehended by the security police for
driving while intoxicated on 16 Nov 89. His blood alcohol  test  (BAT)
revealed a high alcohol content. His driving privileges  on  Clark  AB
and all other US facilities in the Philippines were  revoked  for  one
year.

A 6 Dec 89 medical entry from the Inpatient Mental Health Clinic noted
the applicant was referred by Social Actions for evaluation of alcohol
abuse based on the 16 Nov 89 incident, that there was no  evidence  of
withdrawal symptoms  or  suicidal/homicidal  ideation,  and  that  the
applicant  was  a  problem  drinker.   An   eight-hour   seminar   was
recommended.

As a result, on 11 Dec 89, the group commander imposed an  Article  15
on the applicant for drunken driving  and  reduced  him  in  grade  to
sergeant. The applicant’s written appeal was denied on 18 Jan 90.  The
Article 15 was filed in his UIF.

In the interim, on 18 Dec 89, the 2 Dec 89 Airman  Performance  Report
(APR) was referred to the applicant. The rater gave the  applicant  an
overall rating of 9 and recommended him for  promotion.  However,  the
group commander  (indorser)  nonconcurred,  indicating  the  applicant
failed to meet expectations for an NCO with regard to bearing and off-
duty behavior. The group  commander  gave  the  applicant  an  overall
rating of 7 and did not recommend promotion.  The  division  commander
added an indorsement, noting that  comments  were  requested  but  not
received within the authorized period, that the applicant’s  beginning
outstanding performance had significantly deteriorated, that his  off-
duty behavior required an aggressive positive improvement, and that he
was not ready for promotion and  should  be  carefully  monitored  for
continued service.

A 19 Dec 89 Mental Health Clinic entry  indicates  the  applicant  was
referred by the commander. The applicant  was  described  as  sad  and
disappointed over his occupational problems.  He  was  found  to  have
normal intelligence and intact  judgment,  and  he  vehemently  denied
suicidal/homicidal ideation. Diagnosis was  adjustment  disorder  with
depressed mood.

On 11 Jan 90, the  group  commander  imposed  an  Article  15  on  the
applicant for failing, on 19 Dec 89, to obey the general curfew  order
promulgated by the 13th Air Force commander on 21 Mar 89  to  avoid  a
specified vicinity [a bar area] at a specified  time.  The  punishment
was reduction to airman first class (A1C), suspended until 10 Jul  90.
The applicant did not appeal and the Article 15 was filed in his UIF.

A 19 Jan 90 Memo for the Record by  the  group  commander  reports  he
discussed  with  the  applicant  an  earlier  conversation   he   (the
commander) had with a female who requested more child support from the
applicant. [It is not completely clear whether  this  female  was  the
applicant’s first or second wife, or some other individual.] The group
commander referred the applicant to the Family  Services  Center,  the
Judge Advocate  General,  Personal  Affairs,  and  the  Embassy  about
getting his children registered and working  out  in  writing  a  good
faith  child  support  agreement  to  prevent  future  problems.   The
commander told the applicant he was only able to ensure the  applicant
met his obligations but not to resolve the difference in payments  the
woman requested and his ability to pay.

On 2 Mar 90, the applicant was advised that his Clark AB NCO Open Mess
account was 60 days in arrears for $87.45.

On 4 Apr 90, the applicant’s  $150.00  check  to  the  Army/Air  Force
Exchange bounced; however, he corrected this on 11 Apr 90.

In the meantime,  on  4  Apr  90,  the  group  commander  advised  the
applicant he was nonrecommended for promotion to SSgt for  cycle  91A5
because of the 11 Dec 89 and 11 Jan 90 Article 15s.

According to a Security Police desk blotter for 13-14 Apr 90, security
police were dispatched  to  the  applicant’s  quarters  to  resolve  a
dispute over a personal matter with another individual.

On 17 Apr 90,  the  applicant’s  supervisor,  with  great  reluctance,
recommended vacation of the applicant’s  NCO  status.  The  supervisor
noted the applicant’s exceptional  performance  as  an  administrative
specialist  as  well  as  his  incompatible  off-duty  behavior.   The
supervisor also suggested that the environment seemed to be the source
of the applicant’s problems and recommended he be immediately returned
to the US.  The group commander vacated the  applicant’s  NCO  status,
rendering him ineligible for reenlistment.

On 3 May 90, the group commander notified the applicant  that  he  was
recommending    an    under-other-than-honorable-conditions    (UOTHC)
discharge for misconduct, specifically  conduct  prejudicial  to  good
order and discipline. The group commander cited the three Article  15s
and the four delinquent payments. The group commander also cited a  26
Mar 90 letter [not in the record] regarding the applicant and his wife
being unable to account for numerous items bought  at  the  Commissary
and/or Exchange facilities during a “Show and  Tell”  on  21  Mar  90.
[Apparently, the applicant’s wife, a local  national,  had  sold  some
items on the black market.] The applicant was advised of his right  to
counsel and to present his case to an administrative  discharge  board
(ADB).

The group commander recommended a UOTHC discharge on 7 May 90  without
probation and rehabilitation (P&R). The applicant acknowledged receipt
and requested an ADB and lengthy service  probation  consideration  by
the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF).

The applicant was given a separation physical on 8 May 90 and found to
be worldwide qualified.

A medical entry dated 11 Jun 90 reports the applicant was beaten up by
his friend during an argument, and sustained facial injuries.

On 20 Jun 90, the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing  2 May  90
was referred to the applicant. His  on/off  duty  conduct  was  marked
unacceptable and he was  not  recommended  for  promotion.  The  rater
remarked that the applicant’s off duty conduct failed to meet  minimum
standards, although it did not affect his  job  performance.  Comments
were requested but not received in  the  allotted  time.  The  overall
rating was 2 (new system).

On 2 Jul 90, the applicant received a Letter of  Reprimand  (LOR)  for
facial trauma resulting  from  a  physical  altercation  with  another
enlisted member on 9 Jun 90 (see above).

On 6 Jul 90, an ADB convened. The XXX TAW commander testified that  he
was not aware of any alcohol problems the applicant  might  have  had,
that the applicant had family and financial problems, and  that  while
the applicant never told  him  he  had  an  alcohol  problem,  it  was
possible he did have an alcohol problem. The XXX MASG  First  Sergeant
testified that the applicant alleged his wife was  responsible  for  a
majority of the bills at the NCO club because of  playing  Bingo.  The
First Sergeant suggested the applicant terminate  his  membership  and
noted that other letters of indebtedness in his file were prior to his
assignment with the 624 MASG. He further advised that  Social  Actions
determined the applicant was non-alcoholic and he was entered into the
alcohol abuse program. He testified the applicant never  told  him  he
had an alcohol problem. The group commander  testified  regarding  the
applicant’s job performance and off duty conduct  and  indicated  they
were unable to determine if alcohol was involved in the fight with the
other airmen other than hearsay that they had been drinking  together.
The applicant’s supervisors testified that  his  work  never  suffered
because of his off duty misconduct and that the applicant could have a
possible alcohol problem. The applicant testified he was married  with
four children, two of which were living with him.  He  was  supporting
two families. He blamed his misconduct on the environment while others
think he has a drinking  problem.  He  said  he  attempted  to  go  to
Alcoholics Anonymous  (AA)  meetings.  He  apologized  and  asked  for
another chance. His statement and many character references  attesting
to his professionalism were admitted as exhibits. After deliberations,
the  ADB  recommended  the  applicant  be  separated  with  a  general
discharge, but that he be offered P&R with a conditional suspension of
the discharge.

A legal review on 18 Jul 90 recommended a  general  discharge  without
P&R,  indicating  the  applicant  had   not   shown   amenability   to
rehabilitation  and  that  he  was   entitled   to   lengthy   service
consideration if P&R were not offered.

A 6 Aug 90 Mental  Health  Clinic  entry  reports  the  applicant  was
referred by the commander following a fight with a friend who had been
driving him around during  the  day  while  he  drank.  Diagnosis  was
probable alcohol abuse with a recommendation to the commander to refer
the applicant again to Social Actions and, if  retained,  to  the  Air
Force Alcohol Rehabilitation Center (ARC).

On 15 Aug 90, the wing commander determined that P&R was inappropriate
and approved a general discharge, the execution of which was  withheld
pending lengthy service processing.

On 14 Jan 91, the SAF’s designee denied lengthy service probation  and
directed the approved administrative discharge.

A 26 Jan 91 medical entry reports the applicant  was  despondent  over
the discharge decision but denied suicidal ideation. He indicated  his
marriage to the local national was shaky and didn’t  have  a  specific
plan to cope with the impending separation.

The applicant was discharged for misconduct in  the  grade  of  senior
airman on 15 Feb 01 after 17 years, 2 months  and  8  days  of  active
service with a general characterization.

On 27 Jan 92, the applicant made a personal appearance before the DRB,
contending in part that  his  discharge  was  based  solely  on  three
alcohol-related incidents  and  that  he  should  have  been  afforded
treatment and rehabilitation. However, his  appeal  for  an  honorable
discharge was denied. The DRB noted that the three Article  15s  alone
for spousal assault, driving and drinking, and curfew violations would
have justified the discharge given. The DRB added that alcoholism  did
not excuse the applicant’s frequent misconduct and the Air  Force  was
not obligated to continue to carry a member who  did  not  respond  to
attempts to rehabilitate him.

In Jun 92, the applicant filed  an  appeal  with  the  AFBCMR  for  an
honorable discharge. He contended he would not have been discharged if
he had been an officer or if a reduction in  force  had  not  been  in
effect at the time. He indicated he was under stress because  his  ex-
wife wrote worthless checks and he was providing for two families. His
problems never affected his job performance. His friends told  him  he
had an alcohol problem but his commander never bothered to  seek  help
for him. The HQ AFMPC/JA advised that the applicant  was  referred  to
Social Actions, was determined to be a non-alcoholic, and was  entered
into the alcohol abuse program. Apparently the applicant did not  meet
the threshold criterion for referral to the ARC. JA noted that all  of
the evidence, arguments and rationale submitted by the  applicant  had
been considered several times by a number of agencies and found to  be
without merit. On 8 Sep 93, the AFBCMR denied his application.

On 29 Jan 03, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)  continued  the
applicant’s 10% rating for migraine headaches.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  discussed  the  applicant’s  medical
history and concluded there is no  evidence  in  the  service  medical
record of any medical condition that  warranted  entry  into  the  Air
Force Disability Evaluation System (DES). The applicant’s  history  of
alcohol abuse and the possibility  for  retention  and  rehabilitation
were considered by the board of officers,  the  applicant’s  commander
and legal reviewers prior to his discharge. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPD advises that while the applicant was treated for  various
medical conditions  throughout  his  military  career,  none  appeared
serious or life threatening enough as to preclude him from  performing
his  military  duties  or  curtailing  his  military  career.   DPPD’s
assessment found no errors or irregularities during the administrative
discharge process that would justify a
change in the applicant’s records or  reinstatement  on  active  duty.
They concur  with  the  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant’s  evaluation  and
recommendation to deny.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D

HQ AFPC/DPPRS discusses  the  facts  of  the  case  and  believes  the
discharge  was  consistent  with  the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation. The discharge was within the
discretion of the discharge authority.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 20 Jun 03 for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that he should be returned to active duty or given a medical
discharge. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we  do
not  find  these  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,   sufficiently
persuasive to override  the  evidence  of  record  and  the  rationale
provided by the AFBCMR Medical  Consultant  and  the  Air  Force.  The
applicant received three Article 15s for spousal assault, driving  and
drinking, and curfew  violations.  His  financial  situation  did  not
account for these infractions, and  the  alleged  alcoholism  did  not
excuse his frequent misconduct. He was referred to Social Actions  and
was determined to be a non-alcoholic and was entered into the  alcohol
abuse program. Apparently he did not meet the threshold criterion  for
referral to the ARC. The applicant appears to take  no  responsibility
for his own poor judgment, preferring instead to blame  others.  While
his domestic situations may have been stressful, a  good  deal  of  it
seems to have been of his own making. He knew right from wrong, was in
sufficient control to perform his professional duties and, contrary to
his assertions,  was  given  repeated  opportunities  to  rehabilitate
himself. The evidence, arguments, and rationale he  submits  have  all
been considered several times by a number of agencies and found to  be
without  merit.  The  applicant  has  provided  no  new  evidence   or
contention to induce us to overturn these determinations. We therefore
agree with  the  recommendations  of  the  Air  Force  and  adopt  the
rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that  the  applicant
has not sustained his burden of having suffered either an error or  an
injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to  the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 21 August 2003 under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
                 Mr. E. David Hoard, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-00462 was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Mar 91 [sic], received
                 17 Mar 03, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 28 Apr 03.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 9 Jun 03.
  Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 Jun 03.
  Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 03.





                                   PATRICIA D. VESTAL
                                   Panel Chair