RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03534
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  19 MARCH 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His separation code (K14) and reenlistment (RE)  code  (2H)  be  changed  to
allow him to reenter into military service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His record is not in error, but is unjust.  His  behavior  did  not  warrant
the receipt of these codes, and he has changed.  He  was  not  aware  of  an
appeal process, and wants to serve his country again.

In  support  of  the  application,  the  applicant  submits   his   personal
statement, and, copies of his separation document,  documentation  extracted
from his military personnel record, a state criminal search and a jury  duty
selection letter.  The applicant's complete  submission,  with  attachments,
is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 10 February 1986, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at  the
age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of  4  years.   He
was  progressively  promoted  to  the  rank  of  airman  first  class  (E-3)
effective and with a date of rank of 10 August 1986.

The  following  is  a  resume   of   Airman/Enlisted   Performance   Reports
(APR/EPRs), commencing with the report closing 9 February 1987.

      PERIOD ENDING    OVERALL EVALUATION

      9 Feb 1987       9
      9 Feb 1988       9
      2 Jul 1988       9
      2 Jul 1989       2
      2 Jul 1990       4
      2 Jul 1991       2

On 5 June 1989, the applicant’s  commander  imposed  nonjudicial  punishment
under Article 15, UCMJ, on the applicant, who was then serving in the  grade
of senior  airman,  based  on  his  determination  that  the  applicant  had
operated a motor vehicle while drunk on or about 27  May  1989.   Punishment
consisted of a reduction in grade to airman basic and forfeiture of  $200.00
of his pay per  month  for  two  months.   The  portion  of  the  punishment
pertaining to reduction in grade was suspended until  1  December  1989,  at
which time, unless sooner vacated, it  would  be  remitted  without  further
action.  The suspended portion of the punishment  was  vacated  on  10  July
1989 based on the determination that the applicant was drunk and  disorderly
on or about 2 July 1989.  He was reduced in grade to airman  basic,  with  a
date of rank of 5 June 1989.

On 4 February 1991, nonjudicial  punishment  under  Article  15,  UCMJ,  was
imposed on the applicant, who was then serving in the grade of airman  first
class, based on his commander’s determination that, on or about 21  November
1990, he had been incapacitated for the proper  performance  of  his  duties
due to previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor or drugs.   Punishment
consisted of reduction in grade to airman with a date of rank of 4  February
1991.

On 7 February 1991, he was denied the Air Force Good Conduct Medal  for  the
period 9 February 1989 to 5 February 1991.

On 9 September 1991, nonjudicial punishment  under  Article  15,  UCMJ,  was
imposed on the applicant, who was then  serving  in  the  grade  of  airman,
based on his commander’s determination  he  had  operated  a  motor  vehicle
while drunk on or about 24 August 1991.  Punishment consisted  of  reduction
in grade to airman basic, forfeiture of $100.00 of his pay per month  for  2
months and 45 days of extra duty.  Forfeiture in excess  of  $50.00  of  his
pay for two months was suspended  until  9  October  1991,  at  which  time,
unless sooner vacated, it would be remitted without further action.

Information in the applicant’s medical records shows he  was  evaluated  for
entry in the Social  Action  Drug/Alcohol  Rehabilitation  Program  in  June
1989.  He was diagnosed as a problem drinker, entered into Track IV  of  the
program, and ordered to attend  A.A.  meetings  3  times  per  week  and  to
abstain from  consuming  alcoholic  beverages.   In  October  1989,  he  was
advanced to follow-on  support.   It  was  determined  he  had  successfully
completed the program in January 1990.  He was again  evaluated  in  January
1991, at which time, a diagnosis of alcohol  dependence  was  rendered.   In
February  1991,  he  was  referred  to  a  military  medical  facility   for
detoxification/inpatient treatment.  He completed the treatment program  and
was released to duty in May 1991.   He  was  evaluated  at  an  Intervention
Committee Meeting in  August  1991  and  the  Chief,  Social  Work  Services
indicated the applicant continued to drink despite  being  in  the  program.
It was stated the applicant’s most recent  incident  of  use  was  24 August
1991, at which  time,  his  BAT  was  recorded  as  .2.   If  his  commander
supported a program failure, this officer indicated legal authorities  would
be consulted regarding administrative separation.  It  was  noted  that  the
applicant’s port call was 16 September 1991.

On 8 October 1991, the applicant was discharged from  the  Air  Force  under
the provisions of AFR 39-10,  with  an  Honorable  discharge,  a  separation
designation code of K14, Return from Overseas Within 30 Days  of  Expiration
Term of Service, and an RE Code of 2H (Participating in Track 4 or 5 of  the
Substance Abuse Reorientation and Treatment (SART) program for  alcohol,  or
has failed to complete Track 4.  This code remains valid  until  the  airman
completes  Track  4  or  the  unit  commander   removes   the   reenlistment
ineligibility condition for an airman in the aftercare program of Track  4).
 He had served 5 years, 7 months and 29 days on active duty.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation  (FBI)
provided a copy of an investigative report pertaining to the  former  member
(Identification Record No. 845063HB9).
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  that   based   on   the
documentation on file in the master personnel  records,  the  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge  regulation.   DPPRS  notes  the  applicant  did  not  submit  any
evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  during  the
discharge process, and provided  no  facts  warranting  an  upgrade  of  his
discharge.  DPPRS’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment on 29 December 2004.  On 4 February 2005, a copy  of  the
Federal  Bureau  of  Investigations  (FBI)  report  was  forwarded  to   the
applicant.   To this date, no response has  been  received  on  any  of  the
above correspondence (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice warranting  changes  to  the  applicant’s
separation and/or reenlistment codes.  Applicant’s  contentions  are  noted;
however, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim  of  an
error or injustice.  At the time members are separated from the  Air  Force,
they are furnished RE and separation codes predicated upon  the  quality  of
their  service  and  circumstances  of  their  separation.   The   applicant
believes his separation code is detrimental in some way but the code  merely
relates that at the time of his ETS separation, he was an overseas  returnee
within 30 days of his ETS.  As to the RE code,  the  applicant  acknowledges
it was correct.  We have reviewed the evidence provided and  are  unable  to
conclude corrective action is warranted based on an injustice.   Other  than
his assertion that he has changed, the applicant has  provided  no  evidence
showing he has overcome the problems he experienced while  in  the  service.
In addition, in view of the contents of the  FBI  Identification  Record  we
are not persuaded  that  clemency  is  warranted  in  this  case.   After  a
thorough review of the  evidence  of  record,  we  believe  that  given  the
circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, the RE and  separation
codes issued were in accordance with  the  appropriate  directives.   Absent
evidence by the  applicant  showing  the  contrary,  we  find  no  basis  to
favorably consider his request.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice 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 14 June 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
                 Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2004-03534:


     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7Nov 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Sep 05.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Feb 05.
     Exhibit E.  FBI Report.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair