RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00988
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  2 OCT 2007


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation of Alcohol Abuse Rehabilitation
Failure be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his discharge he was a twenty-three year old  (know-
it-all).  He completed four years with a one-year extension.   Soon
after his divorce, he was arrested for driving under the  influence
(DUI).  He was asked to attend Alcohol Rehab classes;  however,  he
refused to go and requested separation.  He was separated  in  less
than a month and has had this reason for separation ever since.

He is now forty-five years old and has been working at  a  Veterans
Affairs center for the past five years.  He has a bachelor’s degree
in business administration and has just been accepted at a graduate
school.  He has had to live with the stigmatism of his  reason  for
separation for twenty-three years.  He is sober and  is  a  federal
government worker.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  9  Jun  78  for  a
period of four years.

On  2  Jun   83,   the   squadron   section   commander   initiated
administrative discharge action against the applicant  for  failure
in alcohol abuse treatment.  The specific reasons for the  proposed
action were:

     On 24 Feb 83, applicant entered  into  alcohol  rehabilitation
and  was  identified  as  a  problem  drinker.   He  later   became
uncooperative and no longer wished to continue treatment and wanted
to be considered as a failure.

     On 19 May 83, he failed to successfully complete the Substance
Abuse Reorientation and Treatment Program (SART).

On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the  discharge
notification and after consulting  with  counsel  and  having  been
advised of his rights, applicant submitted a conditional waiver  of
his  rights  associated  with  an  administrative  discharge  board
hearing contingent on his receipt of  no  less  than  an  honorable
discharge.  .  On 24 Jun 83, the staff  judge  advocate  found  the
case file legally sufficient to justify an administrative discharge
for failure in alcohol abuse treatment  and  recommended  that  the
applicant  be  discharged  with  an  honorable  discharge,  without
probation and rehabilitation.  On 6 Jul 83, the discharge authority
accepted the conditional  waiver  and  directed  the  applicant  be
honorably  discharged  and  issued  a  DD  Form  256AF   (Honorable
Discharge Certificate).

On 8 Jul 83, the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-10 by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure
and was issued RE code 2C.  He served 5 years and 1 month of active
duty service.

On 16  Jan  87,  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Board  considered  the
applicant’s request to have his RE code of 2C upgraded.  They found
the RE code was within regulatory requirements and properly issued.
 However, applicant presented evidence of post service  achievement
which convinced the Board that the reason and circumstances for his
code had been overcome.  They directed his RE code be changed to RE-
1 and he be eligible to reenlist, provided otherwise qualified.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended applicant’s request be denied.  Based  on
documentation in the file, they found the discharge consistent with
the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation.  Additionally,  the  discharge  was  within  the  sound
discretion of the discharge authority.  They also  noted  applicant
did not submit any evidence or identify any  errors  or  injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing  and  provided  no  other
facts warranting a change to his narrative reason for separation.

A complete copy of the 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 26 April 2006 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this
date, no response has been received by this office (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 error or injustice.  The  majority  of
the Board finds that the discharge appears to be in compliance with
the governing regulations and finds no  evidence  to  indicate  the
applicant’s  separation  or   his   reason   for   separation   was
inappropriate.  The majority of the  Board  finds  no  evidence  of
error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the  evidence  of
record,  they  do  not  believe  the  applicant  has  suffered   an
injustice.  The Board noted the Air Force Discharge Review  Board’s
decision to correct the applicant’s reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)
code based on his post-service information he submitted to them  in
1986; however, other than his own statements the applicant has  not
presented  any  documentation  to  substantiate  his   post-service
activities since 1986 and the majority  of  the  Board  is  of  the
opinion a further correction  of  the  applicant’s  record  is  not
warranted.  Therefore, the majority of the  Board  finds  no  basis
upon which to favorably consider applicant’s request to change  his
narrative reason for separation.

___________________________________________________________________

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-2006-00988 in Executive  Session  on  6  June  2006,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
      Mr. Elwood C. Lewis III, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of  the  application.
Mr. Russell voted to grant, but he does not wish to submit a  Minority
Report. The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Mar 06, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter,      HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Apr 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Apr 06.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR  BC-2006-00988





MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                        FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY
RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of WILLAM S. ABATE, XXXXXXX

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  The majority found that
applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice
and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and
their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept
their recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                  JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                  Director
                                  Air Force Review Boards Agency