RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00364

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable and his  benefits  under  the
Veterans’ Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) be restored.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his discharge, he was a 19-year-old with a drinking  problem.
 Although his drinking did not affect his duty performance, except  for  one
occasion when he reported late for work, he was never  intoxicated  at  work
and was never involved in any trouble on or off base.   He  appreciates  the
help  the  military  provided  him;  however,  he  believes  the   new   and
underdeveloped rehabilitation program he completed did not give him  a  fair
chance or a fair amount of time to rehabilitate.  He is a proud citizen  and
has been sober for 15 years.

The applicant states  that  he  completed  paying  into  the  VEAP  program;
however, he never received reimbursement or the educational benefits.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 February  1986  for  a
period of four years.

He was entered into the Alcohol Abuse Rehabilitation Program on 9 May 1986.

On 22 January 1987,  the  commander  imposed  nonjudicial  punishment  under
Article 15 of the Uniform Code of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ)  for  violating
Articles 92 and 134.  Specifically, for failing to obey a lawful  order  and
wrongfully consuming  alcoholic  beverages.   The  punishment  consisted  of
reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-1).

He failed the Alcohol Abuse Rehabilitation Program on 28 January 1987.

In a letter, dated 10 February 1987, the commander notified him that he  was
recommending his general discharge for  unsatisfactory  performance.   After
consulting military counsel, he waived his right  to  submit  statements  in
his own behalf.  The discharge package was found legally sufficient and  was
approved by the discharge authority on 17 February 1987.

On 17 February 1987, he was discharged under the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10
(Alcohol  Abuse  Rehabilitation  Failure),  with  service  characterized  as
general (under honorable conditions).  He completed 11 months  and  28  days
of active service.

On  3  September  1993,  the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board   (AFDRB)
considered and denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation  (FBI),
Clarksburg, WV, indicated that on the basis  of  the  data  furnished,  they
were unable to locate an arrest record.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states,  in  part,  that
the discharge was consistent with procedural  and  substantive  requirements
of the discharge regulation.  In addition,  the  discharge  was  within  the
sound discretion of the discharge  authority.   The  applicant  provides  no
facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 21 March 2003 for review and response within 30  days.   However,  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 thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence
of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission,  the  Board  finds
no evidence of error or injustice.  In this respect, the  Board  notes  that
the applicant’s discharge appears to be in  compliance  with  the  governing
Air Force Regulation in effect at the time of  his  separation  and  he  was
afforded all the rights to which entitled.  The applicant  has  provided  no
evidence to indicate that his separation was inappropriate.  The Board  also
finds insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that  the  discharge
be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  In this regard, the Board  considered
the applicant’s overall quality of service,  the  events  that  precipitated
the discharge, and the absence  of  evidence  related  to  his  post-service
activities and accomplishments.  On balance,  the  Board  does  not  believe
that clemency is warranted.  However, should the applicant provide  evidence
of his post-service accomplishments, the Board would entertain  his  request
for an upgrade of his discharge on the basis of clemency.

4.  We noted applicant’s request for restoration of his benefits  under  the
Veterans’  Educational  Assistance  Program  (VEAP);  however,  he  was  not
eligible to participate in this program.  In  this  respect,  servicemembers
were eligible to enroll in the VEAP if they  entered  active  duty  for  the
first time after 31 December 1976,  and  before  1  July  1985.   Since  the
applicant did not enter active duty  until  20 February  1986,  he  was  not
eligible to enroll in the program.   We  also  note  that  Item  15,  Member
Contributed to Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’  Educational  Assistance  Program,
of the DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge  from  Active  Duty,
issued in conjunction with his 17 February 1987 discharge indicates that  he
did not contribute to the VEAP.  There being insufficient  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend favorable action on  this
portion of the applicant’s request.

_________________________________________________________________

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  BC-2003-00364
in Executive Session on 8 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                       Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
                       Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jan 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Feb 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 03.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair