RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03644
                                        INDEX CODE:  110.00

                                        COUNSEL:  None

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  None

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  3 JAN 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was erroneously discharged.  He was told he  was  being  discharged
because he failed alcohol  rehabilitation.    He  was  also  told  the
discharge he received was because he had only completed two  years  of
service.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 29 June 1987, the applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF) as an airman basic (AB) for period of four years.

On 17 August 1988, while in correctional custody the  applicant  began
experiencing low back pain while doing push ups.   The  applicant  was
seen in the Emergency Room (ER) on 17 August 1988 and was given a duty
excuse, Motrin and a physical therapy (PT) consult.  He again reported
to the ER and his medication was changed to Indocin and Parafon Forte.

On 19 August 1988, the applicant was reevaluated by the ER and it  was
recommended he  continue  his  medicines  and  follow-up  with  Family
Practice.

On 22 August 1988, the applicant  was  seen  at  the  Family  Practice
Clinic and his medicine was changed to Flexeril and Naprosyn.

On 25 August 1988, the applicant returned to Family Practice  with  no
change in his symptoms and he was admitted into the hospital.
He was hospitalized from 25 August 1988 through 7 September 1988.  The
applicant was discharged from the hospital with a profile  change  and
physical therapy.   On  23  September  1988,  the  applicant  reported
improved low back pain and was going to PT for strengthening exercise.
 His profile was extended until 7 October 1988.

On 4 October 1988, the applicant was seen in the Mental Health  Clinic
for an alcohol related incident.

On 13 October 1988, the applicant was  seen  in  the  Family  Practice
Clinic and indicated no change in his condition and  his  profile  was
continued for two weeks.

On 28 October 1988, the applicant was again seen  in  Family  Practice
for no change in his back pain and prolongation of his profile.

On 13 November 1988, the applicant was returned to duty and a  medical
board was requested.

On 23 February 1989, the applicant was notified  of  his  commander’s
intent to recommend him for discharge  under  the  provision  of  Air
Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, paragraph 5-32, for failure in  Alcohol
Abuse Rehabilitation.  The specific reasons for the discharge  action
were:

      a.    On 13 October 1987, the applicant received an  Article  15
for wrongfully consuming an alcoholic beverage.  For this  misconduct,
his  punishment  consisted  of  seven  days  of  correctional  custody
(suspended) and forfeiture of $100.00.

      b.    On 9 August 1988, the applicant received an Article 15 for
being apprehended for drunk driving on 3 August 1988 and  was  entered
into the Alcohol Rehabilitation Program.   For  this  misconduct,  his
punishment consisted of 30 days of correctional custody, forfeiture of
$150.00 of pay per month for 2 months, and suspended reduction to AB.

      c.    On 19 November 1988, the applicant was observed  consuming
alcohol.

      d.    On 8 December 1988, the applicant was notified  he  failed
alcohol rehabilitation.

The applicant received one performance report while  on  active  duty.
His overall rating was a seven.

The commander advised the applicant of his  right  to  consult  legal
counsel and that military legal counsel had been  obtained  for  him;
submit statements in his own behalf;  and  that  failure  to  consult
counsel or to submit statements would  constitute  a  waiver  of  his
right to do so.

The commander indicated  in  his  recommendation  for  discharge  that
attempts were made  to  rehabilitate  the  applicant  through  alcohol
rehabilitation,  correctional  custody,  reprimand,  punishment  under
Article 15 and was  counseled  on  numerous  occasions;  however,  all
attempts were unsuccessful.

On 24 February 1989, after  consulting  with  counsel,  the  applicant
invoked his right to submit a statement.

On 9 March 1989, a legal review was conducted in which the staff judge
advocate  recommended  the  applicant  receive  an   under   honorable
conditions (general) discharge without probation  and  rehabilitation.
The legal office further identified the following additional offenses:

      a.    On 31 March 1988,  the  applicant  received  a  Record  of
Individual Counseling for being late for work.

      b.    Between 13 July 1988 and 23  August  1988,  the  applicant
wrote seven checks with insufficient funds.

      c.    On 9 August 1988,  the  applicant  received  a  Letter  of
Reprimand (LOR) for fighting in the dormitory.

      d.    On 15 August 1988, the  applicant  received  a  Record  of
Counseling for being late to work.

      e.    On 23 August 1988, the applicant wrote a check to the Base
Exchange with insufficient funds.

      f.    On 15 November 1988, the applicant received  a  Record  of
Individual Counseling for being late for work.

On 7 February 1989, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was convened  and
referred the applicant’s case to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).

On 7 April 1989, a PEB was convened based on the applicant’s history
of back pain and  muscle  spasms  and  recommend  the  applicant  be
discharged with severance pay with  zero  percent  disability.   The
applicant concurred with the findings  of  the  PEB.   The  PEB  and
discharge case were forwarded to the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force
Personnel Council (SAFPC) for processing as a dual action case.

On 9 May  1989,  the  SAF  directed  the  applicant’s  discharge  be
executed under the provisions of AFR 39-10 and terminated the action
under AFR 35-4.

Applicant was discharged on 16 May 1989, in the grade of AB with  an
under honorable conditions (general) discharge, in  accordance  with
AFR  39-10  Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen  (alcohol   abuse
rehabilitation failure).  He served a total of 1 year, 10 months and
18 days of active service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which  is  attached
at 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.  Also, he did not provide any facts to warrant  an  upgrade
of his discharge.  Based on the information and evidence provided they
recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

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

On 23 January 2006, the Board staff requested  the  applicant  provide
documentation  concerning  his  activities  since   leaving   military
service.  As of this date, the applicant has  not  responded  (Exhibit
F).

On 8 February 2006, the Board staff forwarded the applicant a copy  of
the FBI report for his review and response.   As  of  this  date,  the
applicant has not responded (Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

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 an injustice  to  warrant  upgrading  the
applicant’s discharge.  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  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.  In this respect,  it  appears  the  applicant’s  case  was
properly processed through the Secretary of the  Air  Force  Personnel
Council as a dual action case where a determination was made  that  he
be discharged for  misconduct,  rather  than  discharging  him  for  a
disability for a history of back pain and muscle  spasms.   Therefore,
we believe the processing of the discharge and the characterization of
the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air
Force policy.   The  Board  has  considered  the  applicant’s  overall
quality of service and in view of the numerous instances of misconduct
during the time he was on active duty, does not  believe  clemency  is
warranted.  The Board further notes the applicant failed to respond to
the   request   for   documentation   regarding    his    post-service
accomplishments and activities.  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-
2005-03644 in Executive Session on 7 March 2006, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
                 Ms. Kathleen B. O’Sullivan, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2005-03644 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Nov 05.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Dec 05.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Dec 05.
      Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Jan 06, w/atch.
      Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Feb 06, w/atch.



                                        JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                        Panel Chair