RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02185
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  11 Jan 07


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 9  Mar  87  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be
upgraded to honorable so that he can apply for retirement benefits.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged after serving 20 years, 3 months,  and  9  days  and
receives no retirement benefits.  He did not hurt or harm anyone other
than himself and his family.  He notes that you hear  of  people  with
over 20 years or nearing retirement doing bad things in  the  military
being allowed to retire, especially senior management or officers.  He
feels like he was treated unfairly  and  discriminated  against.   The
reason for his discharge was alcohol rehabilitation failure.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 7 Dec 66. The applicant was
promoted up to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6).  However,
on 29 Oct 85, he was demoted to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) (E-
5) for driving while intoxicated/carrying  a  loaded  firearm  in  his
vehicle in violation of the California Penal Code.  On 27 May  86,  he
was demoted from the grade of SSgt to sergeant (Sgt) (E-4) for failure
to fulfill NCO responsibilities under AFR 39-30, Section A,  paragraph
3(g).  On 30 May 86, he was demoted from Sgt (E-4)  to  senior  airman
(SrA) (E-4) for involvement in numerous incidents totally inconsistent
with the responsibilities of an NCO.

On 18 Jul 86, his squadron commander notified him he was  recommending
his discharge  from  the  Air  Force  for  failure  in  alcohol  abuse
rehabilitation,  minor  disciplinary  infractions,  and  drug   abuse,
according to AFR 39-10.  The reasons for the commander’s actions were:

        a.  Child Neglect.  Counseled on  19  Oct  83  concerning  his
dependent care responsibilities.

        b.  Domestic Disturbance.  Counseled by his squadron commander
on 17 Dec 83 as to his  responsibility  for  insuring  his  dependents
conducted themselves in a proper manner.

         c.  Traffic  Ticket.  Applicant  received  an  armed   forces
traffic ticket on 1 Feb 84 for not  having  his  registration  in  his
possession and was counseled by his squadron first sergeant.

        d.  Child Neglect.  Counseled on 3  Aug  85  by  his  squadron
first sergeant on his sponsor/parent responsibilities.  Applicant  was
advised that any future recurrences could result in  punitive  actions
and the possibility of his child being removed from his custody.

        e.  Domestic Disturbance.  Counseled  on  26  Aug  85  by  his
squadron  first  sergeant  on  his  responsibility  to   control   his
dependents and maintain good order and discipline.

        f.  Summer Yard Program.  Applicant received a third notice of
discrepancies for not keeping his yard watered and seeded.

        g.  DUI/Transporting a concealed weapon.  Received an  Article
15 and had his driving privileges revoked.

        h.  Referral to Hospital for Urinalysis.  On 26 Feb 86, tested
positive for THC  on  a  commander-directed  urinalysis.   Received  a
letter of reprimand (LOR) with an unfavorable information file (UIF).

        i.  Child Neglect.  On 11 Apr 86, counseled  by  his  squadron
first sergeant on his dependent care responsibilities.

        j.  Broken Dental  Appointment.   Verbally  counseled  by  his
squadron first sergeant for missing a dental appointment.

        k.  Alcohol Rehabilitation Program  Failure.   On  3  Apr  86,
failed the Alcohol Abuse Rehabilitation Program.

        l.  Dishonored Check Notification.  Counseled by his  squadron
first sergeant on 2  May  86  for  a  dishonored  check  at  the  base
exchange.

        m.  Numerous  Incidents.   On  5  May  86,  counseled  by  his
squadron commander for being involved in numerous  incidents  on  base
and advised that involvement in another incident would result  in  his
removal from base housing.

         n.  Drug  Rehabilitation  Failure.   On  27  May  86,  tested
positive for THC during monthly rehabilitation  testing.   Received  a
LOR.

On 8 Sep 86, the commander notified the applicant  that  the  original
letter of notification inadvertently failed to include the applicant’s
failure of drug rehabilitation as one of the reasons for discharge and
that it would be included as one of the reasons for discharge.   On  8
Sep 86, the applicant was also notified that a board of  officers  had
been appointed  to  consider  his  discharge  for  minor  disciplinary
infractions as indicated above.  On 9 Sep 86, the  commander  notified
the applicant that the results of the positive urinalysis would not be
used to characterize his service.  The Administrative Discharge  Board
convened on 11 Sep 86.  On 29 Oct 86, the applicant was  advised  that
at anytime before action  on  the  recommendation  for  discharge  was
complete, he could apply for retirement.  The Administrative Discharge
Board subsequently recommended that the applicant be discharged with a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge because of  failure  in
the alcohol and drug  rehabilitation  programs  and  that  he  not  be
offered rehabilitation opportunities with a conditional suspension  of
his discharge.

On 17 Nov 86, the applicant applied for  voluntary  retirement  to  be
effective 1 Jan 87.  On 2 Mar 87, the Deputy  Assistant  Secretary  of
the Air Force (Manpower Resources and Personnel)  declined  to  accept
the  applicant’s  application  for  retirement  and  directed  he   be
discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

The applicant was discharged  on  9  Mar  87  with  a  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  Based on the
documentation on file in the master personnel  record,  the  discharge
was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation.  The applicant did not submit  any  evidence  or
identify any errors or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge
process.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 2
Sep 05 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has
not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary  responsibility  and  adopt  its  rationale  as  the
primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.  Although we did not find a basis  to
upgrade the applicant’s discharge based on error or injustice, we note
that the  applicant  did  not  submit  any  evidence  of  post–service
activities so that his request might be considered  on  the  basis  of
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 Docket  Number  BC-2005-
02185 in Executive Session on 6 October 2005, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
      Ms. Sue A. Lumpkins, Member
      Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jul 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Aug 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Sep 05.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair