RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00586
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  21 AUG 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He performed his duties with honor despite being  afflicted  by  the
disease of alcoholism.  He has sought help and  is  in  a  state  of
recovery and sober.  He was not given or offered  any  treatment  by
the noncommission officer in charge (NCOIC) or  his  commander  (CO)
prior to his separation.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 12 August 1985, the applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF) as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 14 April 1988, the applicant  was  notified  of  his  commander’s
intent to recommend  him  for  discharge  from  the  Air  Force  for
misconduct  minor  disciplinary   infractions   and   unsatisfactory
performance in accordance with AFR 39-10, under  the  provisions  of
paragraph 5-46 and 5-26a with a general  discharge.   The  commander
stated the following reasons for the proposed discharge:

      a.    On 16 April 1986, the applicant failed to report to  his
scheduled CWDT training and  also  failed  to  report  to  his  duty
section for the entire day.   For  this  misconduct,  the  applicant
received written counseling.

      b.    On 18 April 1986, the  applicant  reported  to  duty  55
minutes  late.   For  this  misconduct,   the   applicant   received
counseling.

      c.    On 8 May 1986, the applicant  was  15  minutes  late  to
work, for which he received written counseling.

      d.    As of 9 May 1986, the  applicant’s  performance  in  the
Pneudraulic Shop was substandard; he had  been  late  to  work  four
times, his job performance was marginal, and his attitude  was  less
than satisfactory, for which  he  received  a  letter  of  reprimand
(LOR).

      e.    On 13 August 1986, the applicant was  observed  sleeping
on duty.   For  this  misconduct,  the  applicant  received  written
counseling.

      f.    The applicant from 8 September 1986 to 15 September 1986
was late to work three times, for which he received an LOR.

      g.    On 7 October 1986, the applicant’s account at the  Clark
AB Coconut Grove was delinquent in the amount of $122.90, for  which
he was counseled.

      h.    On 15 October 1986, the applicant failed to  report  for
duty  at  the  prescribed  time,  for  which  he  received   written
counseling.

      i.    On  18  October  1986,  the  application  violated  dorm
visitation rules by having a female guest in  the  dorm  during  the
prohibited hours of 2400-0700.  For this misconduct,  the  applicant
received an LOR.

      j.    On 4 November 1986, the applicant failed to  go  to  his
scheduled  appointment  at  the  Public  Health  Clinic.   For  this
misconduct, the applicant received a verbal reprimand.

       k.     On  6  November  1986,  the  applicant  violated  dorm
visitation rules by leaving  his  unescorted  female  guest  in  the
dormitory during his absence.  For this  misconduct,  the  applicant
received an LOR.

      l.    On 10 December 1986, the  applicant  failed  his  Career
Development Course end-of course exam, for which  he  was  counseled
and assigned two to three hours daily study time  after  duty  hours
prior to his retesting on 15 January 1987.

      m.    As of 20 March 1987,  the  applicant’s  account  at  the
Clark AB Coconut Grove was delinquent in the amount of $118.40,  for
which he was counseled.

      n.    On 9 April 1987, the applicant was 1 hour and 30 minutes
late for duty, for which he received written counseling.

      o.    On 17 April 1987, the applicant reported one  hour  late
for duty, for which he received written counseling.

      p.    On 22 April 1987, the applicant was 45 minutes late  for
duty.  For this misconduct, he received an LOR.

      q.    As of 23  April  1987,  the  applicant’s  Base  Exchange
Deferred Payment Plan (DPP) account was delinquent in the amount  of
$47.47, for which he was counseled.

      r.    On or about 27  April  1987,  the  applicant’s  personal
appearance was not within Air Force  standards,  for  which  he  was
counseled.

      s.    On 27 April 1987, the applicant  failed  to  go  to  his
scheduled appointment at the Public Health Clinic, for which he  was
counseled.

      t.    On 1 May 1987, without authority, the  applicant  failed
to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place  of  duty.   For
this misconduct, the applicant received an Article 15.

      u.    On 26 June 1987, the  applicant  reported  for  duty  30
minutes late.  For  this  misconduct  his  punishment  consisted  of
written counseling.

      v.    As of 20 July 1987, the applicant’s Airmen’s  Open  Mess
account was delinquent in the amount of $76.80.

      w.    On 4 September 1987, the applicant was derelict  in  the
performance of his duties by failing to do the  work  assigned,  for
which he received written counseling.

      x.    The applicant’s account at the Solid Vision Video Rental
was delinquent from 4 May 1987 until 19 October 1987, for  which  he
was counseled.

      y.    As of 23 October 1987, the applicant’s Base Exchange DPP
account  was  delinquent  in  the  amount  of  $46.88,  for  he  was
counseled.

      z.    As of 22 December 1987, the applicant accounts at  Solid
Vision Video  Rental  and  Friendship  were  delinquent.   For  this
misconduct, the applicant received an LOR.

      aa.   As of 20 January 1988, the applicant’s  account  at  the
Airmen’s Open Mess was delinquent in the amount of $91.45.  For this
misconduct, the applicant was counseled.

      bb.   As of 20 February 1988, the applicant’s account  at  the
Airmen’s Open Mess was delinquent in the amount of $63.85.

      cc.   The overall rating on his last four Airmen’s Performance
Reports (APRs) were 6 (11 November  1986),  7  (11  March  1987),  7
(12 November 1987) and 6 (15 March 1988), indicating a progressively
downward trend in the his performance ratings.

      dd.   On or about 16 March 1988, the applicant  submitted  and
falsified  and  fraudulently  prepared  Air  Force  (AF)  Form   357
(Dependent Care Certification) to the  Squadron  Section  Commander.
For this misconduct he received an LOR.

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

The commander indicated in his recommendation that  he  ensured  the
applicant was given opportunity for rehabilitation.   The  applicant
received  numerous  verbal   and   written   counseling;   financial
counseling and training, numerous reprimands, Article 15  punishment
including correction  custody,  and  two  separate  periods  on  the
control roster.  The commander further recommended the applicant  be
discharged without probation and rehabilitation.

On 18 April 1988,  after  consulting  with  counsel,  the  applicant
waived his right to submit a statement.

A legal review was conducted on 27 April 1988  in  which  the  staff
judge advocate recommended the applicant be separated from  the  Air
Force with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 29 April 1988, the discharge authority directed the applicant  be
discharged  with  a  general   discharge   without   probation   and
rehabilitation.

Applicant’s EPR profile is listed below.

                 PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

                    6 Sep 86                 8
                   11 Nov 86                 6
                   11 Mar 87                 7
                  *12 Nov 87                 7
                  *15 Mar 88                 6

*Referral report.

Applicant was discharged on 3 November 1988, in the grade of  airman
with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, in accordance
with  AFR  39-10  (Misconduct  -  Pattern  of   Minor   Disciplinary
Infractions.  He served a total of 3 years, 2 months and 22 days  of
active service.

Pursuant  to  the   Board’s   request,   the   Federal   Bureau   of
investigation, Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the  data
furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (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.  The applicant did not  provide  any  facts  to
warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  Based on the  information  and
evidence provided they recommend the request be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
1 April 2005, for review and response.  As of this date, no response
has been received by this office.

On 21 April 2005, the Board staff requested  the  applicant  provide
documentation  regarding  his  activities  since  leaving   military
service.  The applicant did not respond (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or an injustice.  After noting
the applicant's complete submission we agree with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force and adopt its rationale as the basis
for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden
that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  The applicant
contends that although he performed his duties  with  honor  he  was
suffering from alcoholism and was not given or offered any treatment
from his unit.  We note the applicant was   discharged  due  to  his
misconduct and his records do not reflect that any of his misconduct
was  related  to  alcoholism.   The  applicant  has  not   presented
persuasive evidence that the discharge was not consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the Air Force regulation.
 Therefore, based on the documentation in the  applicant's  records,
it  appears  that  the  processing  of   the   discharge   and   the
characterization of the discharge were appropriate and  accomplished
in  accordance  with  Air  Force  policy.   The  applicant  has  not
established to our satisfaction that he has been the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  The applicant has not requested  clemency,  and
has  failed  to  respond  to  a  request  to  provide  documentation
regarding his post-service accomplishments and activities;  however,
should he  provide  documentation  pertaining  to  his  post-service
accomplishments and activities,  this  Board  would  be  willing  to
review the materials for possible  reconsideration  of  his  request
based on clemency.  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-2005-00586  in  Executive  Session  on  8  June  2005  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
                 Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jan 05.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Mar 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Apr 05.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Apr 05, w/atch.




                                        MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                        Panel Chair