RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01138
            INDEX CODE:  110.00,112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  and  his
Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Air Force records indicates that he  attended  substance  abuse  classes
while in Korea.  He indicates that he  never  received  effective  treatment
for his alcohol problem and has  no  documents  from  his  military  records
indicating that he received treatment.  He believes that if given  a  second
chance he can be a good airman and an asset to the Air Force.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided  a  copy  of  a  letter  to
Senator Arlen Specter and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 18 February 1999, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four (4) years.

On 25 August 2000, the applicant was notified of his commander's  intent  to
initiate discharge action against him for  Minor  Disciplinary  Infractions.
The specific reasons follow:





            On or about 10 March  2000,  he  wrongfully  consumed  alcoholic
beverages while under 20 years of age.  As a result he received a Letter  of
Reprimand (LOR), dated 13 March 2000.

            On 10 April 2000, the applicant was notified of his  commander’s
intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following:   On  or
about 1 April 2000, he failed to obey a lawful general regulation.  To  wit:
paragraph 23(c), United States Forces  Korea  Regulation  27-5,  dated  June
1998, by wrongfully consuming alcoholic beverages while under  20  years  of
age.  After consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to  a  trial
by court-martial and submitted a written presentation in his behalf.  On  14
April 2000, he was found guilty by his commander who imposed  the  following
punishment: Reduction to the grade of  airman  basic  (suspended),  32  days
restriction, $50.00 a  month  for  two  months,  and  11  days  extra  duty.
Applicant did not appeal the punishment.  The Article 15 was  filed  in  his
Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

            On or about 11 May 2000, he was involved in an altercation  with
a senior airman while intoxicated.  He was told by a staff  sergeant  to  go
home.  Instead he became belligerent and disrespectful.   As  a  result,  he
received an LOR, dated 16 May 2000.

      On or about 1 August 2000, he failed to go to a  mandatory  formation.
As a result, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC), dated 7 August 2000.

      On or about 5 August 2000, he was drunk and disorderly, which  conduct
was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.  As a  result,  he
received a Vacation of Suspended Action on 15 August 2000.

      On or about 14 August 2000, he failed to make his supervisor aware  of
a scheduled appointment.  He also failed to  report  to  work  in  a  timely
manner  after  the  appointment.   For  this  infraction,  he  was  verbally
counseled, as evidenced by a Memorandum For Record (MFR),  dated  21  August
2000.

      On or about 21 August 2000, he failed to go to his appointed place  of
duty after attending a mandatory appointment.  As a result, he  received  an
LOR, dated 22 August 2000, and a UIF was established, dated 22 August 2000.

The commander advised applicant of  his  right  to  consult  legal  counsel,
submit statements in his own behalf, or waive his  rights  after  consulting
with counsel.

On 28 August 2000, the applicant’s  Area  Defense  Counsel  (ADC)  requested
additional time to respond to the Administrative Discharge  action  and  the
commander granted the request.

On 31 August 2000, the Defense Paralegal for  the  applicant  requested  the
applicant be given until 1 September 2000 to respond to  the  Administrative
Discharge action.  The commander disapproved the applicant’s request.

The commander indicated in his  recommendation  for  discharge  action  that
before recommending the discharge, the applicant  had  been  provided  every
opportunity to correct his behavior.  He persisted in  being  irresponsible,
despite the administrative actions that had been attempted  to  reform  him.
His continued lack of integrity and irresponsible  behavior  was  a  blatant
disregard for the high standard of conduct that  was  expected  of  military
members.  The applicant had been given ample opportunity to conform  to  Air
Force standards.  His failure to  adhere  to  those  standards  called  into
question his commitment to the Air Force.

The Staff Judge Advocate recommended  the  applicant  be  issued  a  general
discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).

On  8  September  2000,  the  discharge   authority   approved   applicant’s
discharge.

On 23 September 2000, the applicant was discharged in the  grade  of  airman
basic.  He received a general (under honorable conditions)  discharge  under
the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208  (Misconduct).   He   served   one   year,
seven months and six days of total active service.  He received an  RE  code
of 2B  -  Involuntarily  separated  with  a  general  or  under  other  than
honorable conditions discharge.

On 12 July 2002 the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered  and
denied the applicant’s request  to  upgrade  his  general  (under  honorable
conditions) discharge to honorable and that his RE code  be  changed.   They
indicated that there is no legal or equitable basis  to  upgrade  or  change
the applicant’s discharge or RE code (Exhibit B).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommended  denial.   They  indicated  that  based   upon   the
documentation in the file, 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.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence  or  identify  any
errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge  processing.   He
provided no other facts warranting an upgrade  of  the  discharge.   He  has
filed a timely request.



The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial.  They indicated that the  applicant’s  record
reflects a history of  disciplinary  actions  contrary  to  good  order  and
discipline.  The RE code 2B is correct.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 19 June 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response within 30  days.   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 timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of an 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 conclusion that the applicant  has  not  been
the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant  has  failed  to
demonstrate that the commander exceeded his authority  or  that  the  reason
for the discharge was inaccurate or unwarranted.  The  Board  believes  that
responsible  officials  applied  appropriate  standards  in  effecting   the
separation, and the Board does not find persuasive evidence  that  pertinent
regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the  rights
to which entitled at the time of discharge.  Therefore, in  the  absence  of
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 an 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-
01138  in Executive Session on 14 August 2003, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                  Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
                  Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 February 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 May 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 17 June 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 June 2003.





                                JOSEPH A. ROJ
                                Panel Chair