RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02788
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            CASE #2

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  12 MAR 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The applicant did not specify what correction he wanted although it  appears
he wants to be compensated for the past 10 years.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  was   an
injustice.  He believes that while in the service he  should  have  received
treatment for alcoholism.  He indicates he appealed  his  discharge  through
the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR)  and  on  18
December 2002, his case  was  approved  and  his  discharge  upgraded  to  a
general (under honorable conditions).  He further indicates  he  could  have
remained on active duty for 32 years and retired.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the time period in question, the applicant, who  had  prior  service,
enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 August 1966 in the grade  of  airman
basic for a period of four years.

On 27 February 1970, the applicant was notified of  his  commander's  intent
to initiate discharge  action  against  him  for  unfitness.   The  specific
reasons follow:




      a. He received numerous letters  of  indebtedness  from  various  loan
companies and commercial firms (10 March 1969, G.F.C. Loan Company; 9  April
1969, Banner Loan Company; 30 April 1969, Dial  Finance  Company;  28  April
1969, International Investment Company; 29 April 1969, G.F.C. Loan  Company;
11 August 1969, G.F.C. Loan  Company;  and  20  August  1969,  Western  Auto
Central Credit Office).

      b. Repeated counseling on his  financial  matters  failed  to  impress
upon him the seriousness of these letters; nor did he  take  action  to  pay
his just debts.

      c. During the month of July  1969,  at  Izmir  and  Cigli  Air  Bases,
Turkey, the applicant wrote checks to  the  Non-Commissioned  Officer  (NCO)
Club (four checks to  Cigli  and  three  to  Izmir)  each  which  was  later
returned from his bank due to insufficient funds in his checking account.

      d. Article 15, Uniform Code of Military  Justice  (UCMJ),  imposed  by
his commander on 10 October  1969,  for  violation  of  Article  134,  UCMJ,
disorderly in a public place, in which  he  was  reduced  to  the  grade  of
airman first class, and ordered to forfeit $50.00 per month for  one  month;
but, the execution of that portion of  the  punishment  which  provided  for
reduction to the grade of airman first class was suspended  until  10  April
1970.

      e. On 6 November 1969, he  received  a  letter  from  his  supervisor,
reprimanding him for driving and possessing an unregistered privately  owned
vehicle (POV).

      f. On 24 November 1969,  he  was  convicted  by  the  Turkish  Traffic
Court, Izmir, Turkey,  for  violation  of  Articles  31  and  58 of  Turkish
Traffic Law Number 6085, “driving after drinking.”

      g. On 9 December 1969, he was placed  on  the  Airman  Control  Roster
under the provisions of AFR 35-32,  based  upon  his  record  of  dishonored
checks during the period 15 August through 1 October 1969.

      h. On 6 February 1970, he was involved in an  automobile  accident  in
Izmir, Turkey, immediately after which a Turkish Judicial  Doctor  indicated
he had been drinking.  In addition, on 7 February 1970, in  connection  with
this accident he was convicted in the local Turkish Court for  violation  of
Articles 31 and 33 of  Turkish  Traffic  Law  Number  6085,  “Driving  after
drinking and speeding.”








      i. On 10 February 1970, as the result of  his  conviction  in  Turkish
Traffic Court of driving after drinking and speeding, the commander  vacated
the suspended reduction to  the  grade  of  airman  first  class  which  was
imposed upon him on 10 October  1969  by  his  previous  commander  and  the
unexecuted portion of the punishment was duly executed.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that  the
applicant had been counseled by his immediate  Non-Commissioned  Officer-In-
Charge  (NCOIC),  First  Sergeant,  Administrative  Officer   and   Squadron
Commander almost  weekly  regarding  his  financial  obligations  and  other
personal problems.  His supervisor had done everything humanly  possible  in
aiding the  applicant  in  solving  his  financial  problems  and  behavior.
Efforts  of  all  supervisors  concerned  failed   to   make   any   lasting
improvement.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to present his case  before
an administrative discharge board (ADB), consult legal  counsel  and  submit
statements in his own behalf; or waive the  above  rights  after  consulting
with counsel.

On 5 March 1970, after consulting with counsel,  the  applicant  waived  his
right to appear before an ADB and to submit statements in his own behalf.

On  27  March  1970,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the   applicant’s
discharge.

The applicant was discharged on 14 April 1970, in the grade of airman  first
class with an under  other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge,
under the  provisions  of  AFM  39-12,  (Unfitness).   He  served  6  years,
9 months and 25 days of total active duty service.

On 7 November  2002,  the  AFBCMR  considered  and  partially  approved  the
applicant’s  request  to  upgrade  his  UOTHC  discharge  to  an   honorable
discharge.  The Board upgraded his discharge  to  general  (under  honorable
conditions).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial indicating that based upon  the  documentation
on file in the master personnel record, the discharge  was  consistent  with
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation  and
was within the discretion of the discharge  authority.   The  applicant  did
not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that  occurred
in the discharge processing.



The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  applicant  reviewed  the  evaluation  and  indicated  he  was  unjustly
discharged.  His chain of command was aware of  his  problem  with  alcohol.
He was not  offered  any  type  of  treatment  and  believes  he  should  be
compensated.  He further indicates he was not read his  rights  regarding  a
hearing before an administrative discharge board and was rushed through  the
discharge process.  He states he was proud to be in the Air  Force  and  was
going to make it a career.  He seeks clemency.

The applicant’s review, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommended denial indicating the applicant  was
administratively separated  for  frequent  involvement  of  a  discreditable
nature with civilian or military  authorities  and  an  established  pattern
showing  dishonorable  failure  to  pay  just  debts.   Three  incidents  of
discreditable involvement with civilian  or  military  authorities  involved
the use of alcohol.  The applicant requests change of  records  to  show  he
was  retained  on  active  duty,  provided  alcohol  abuse  treatment,   and
completed sufficient years of service  to  become  eligible  for  length  of
service retirement.   He  asserts  he  was  discharged  because  he  was  an
alcoholic and the Air Force didn’t want to put him in treatment.

Air Force regulations in force at the time of his separation (AFM  39-12,  1
September  1966)  provided  for  administrative  discharge  solely  due   to
alcoholism, including the intemperate use of  alcohol  (paragraph  2-4,  e).
At the time of his discharge, there was  no  requirement  for  referral  for
alcohol evaluation and treatment  or  for  retention  in  order  to  undergo
alcohol treatment.  Within a few years of  the  applicant’s  discharge,  the
Air Force  developed  formalized  guidelines  for  referral  of  airmen  for
alcohol abuse evaluation and treatment (AFR 30-2, Social Actions Program,  1
August 1974; and AFR  160-36,  Rehabilitation  of  Personnel  with  Drinking
Problems, 26 March  1976).   Under  these  subsequent  regulations,  alcohol
abuse or alcoholism alone no longer could form the sole basis for  discharge
without an opportunity  for  rehabilitation.   However,  airmen  who  abused
alcohol were still subject to disciplinary action and  the  consequences  of
misconduct related to  alcohol  abuse  including  administrative  discharge.
Such members were referred for alcohol evaluation  and  treatment;  however,
commanders were not and presently are not required to retain  members  whose
records otherwise support discharge for misconduct regardless of  successful
completion of alcohol treatment.  Members being administratively  discharged
for misconduct or other reasons may or may not be  retained  for  completing
rehabilitation prior to separation due to medical necessity  (as  determined
by medical authority) or for purposes of offering the member  rehabilitation
prior to entering civilian life.  The applicant  was  not  discharged  based
solely on alcohol abuse.  Although some of the  applicant’s  misconduct  was
related to abuse or misuse of alcohol, his  financial  irresponsibility  was
not  related  to  alcohol  consumption  and   alone   was   sufficient   for
administrative discharge.  Action and disposition in this  case  are  proper
and  equitable  reflecting  compliance  with  Air  Force   directives   that
implement the law.

The evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 25 November 2005, a copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit G).

On 28 December 2005, the Board staff received the  applicant’s  request  for
an extension of time to respond to the advisory opinion (Exhibit H).

On 11 January 2006, the Board staff advised the applicant that  his  request
was approved until  31  January  2006  at  which  time  his  case  would  be
processed for presentation to the Board for a final decision  based  on  the
available evidence of record (Exhibit I).

On 31 January 2006, the Board staff received additional  documentation  from
the applicant, who indicated that the debts that  were  made  while  he  was
stationed in Alaska, were the fault of his  former  spouse.   In  regard  to
being convicted by the Turkish Traffic Court in Izmir, Turkey,  for  driving
after drinking, he has never been to  court  or  seen  documents  indicating
that he was charged with any type of conviction.  He is currently  receiving
non-service disability; however, if the Board sees  that  he  is  worthy  of
receiving service-connected disability it would be appreciated.  He  further
indicates that he was wrongly discharged and is  seeking  clemency.   He  is
61 years of age, has cancer, and is still an alcoholic.

The applicant’s response is at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________





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.  The applicant’s  contentions  are  duly
noted; however, the Board notes the applicant was  discharged  for  frequent
involvement of a discreditable nature with civilian or military  authorities
and an established pattern showing the dishonorable failure to pay his  just
debts.  At the time of the  applicant’s  separation,  governing  regulations
provided for administrative discharge solely due  to  alcoholism,  including
the intemperate use of alcohol.  There was no requirement for  referral  for
alcohol evaluation and treatment  or  for  retention  in  order  to  undergo
alcohol treatment.  The applicant was not discharged solely on the basis  of
alcohol abuse.  It appears his  financial  irresponsibility  was  sufficient
for  an  administrative  discharge.   The  applicant  presents  insufficient
evidence that his alcohol abuse was the cause  of  his  financial  problems.
It  appears  he  was  given  ample  opportunity  to  correct  his  behavior.
Therefore, because of his financial irresponsibility he was not retained  on
active duty, which makes any compensation a moot issue.  With regard to  his
assertion he was not read his rights before an ADB, the  applicant  presents
no evidence to  support  such  a  claim.   The  Board  also  notes  that  on
7 November 2002, the AFBCMR upgraded the applicant’s UOTHC  discharge  to  a
general (under honorable conditions) and is of the opinion  that  a  further
upgrade is not warranted.  In view of the  above,  and  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 the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice; the application was denied without  a
personal appearance; and 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-
02788 in Executive Session on 23 February 2006, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Aug 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Sep 05.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Sep 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Oct 05, w/atch.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                   dated 4 Nov 05.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Nov 05, w/atch.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Nov 05.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Jan 06.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Jan 06.





                       LAURENCE M. GRONER
                       Panel Chair