RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02182
      INDEX CODE:  110.00
      COUNSEL:  NONE

      HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  23 JANUARY 2008

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was a full-blown alcoholic during his tour of duty.  He had various  run-
ins with his commanding officer – all alcohol  or  marijuana  related  which
resulted in his other than honorable discharge.  His flight  line  work  was
unmatched because he knew the base so well that his branch  chief  entrusted
him to find all lost Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) on  base.   He  was  a
squad leader, honor grad and runner up for Airman of the Month during  basic
military training (BMT).  He advanced to senior Red Rope and worked  in  the
student training advisor’s office during the day.  He attended  tech  school
fast-track at night.  He was not a  bad  airman,  simply  an  alcoholic  who
needed help.  He became sober on December 1,  1991,  and  remains  sober  to
this day.  An upgrade to honorable conditions would  mean  he  could  obtain
much needed benefits from his local VA hospital.  He  has  a  bad  back,  no
insurance and could use all the help he can get.

No  supporting  documents  were   submitted.    The   applicant’s   complete
submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 Apr  78  in  the  grade  of
airman basic.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of  senior  airman
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank  of  1  Aug  80.
On 3 Jun 81, applicant was notified  by  his  commander  of  his  intent  to
recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the  provisions  of
AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, section B, paragraph  2-15a,  dated  1  Sep  66.   The
specific  reason  for  this  action  was  his  frequent  involvement  of   a
discreditable  nature  with  military  and  civilian  authorities.   He  was
advised of his rights  in  this  matter  and  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification on 21 Jul 81.  The applicant consulted counsel and submitted  a
statement on his own behalf.  On 1 Sep 81, a Board of Officers  convened  to
consider the applicant’s discharge and  found  him  guilty  of  the  charges
addressed by his commander.  In a legal review of the case file,  the  staff
judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended that he  be
discharged.  On 28 Sep  81,  the  discharge  authority  concurred  with  the
recommendations and directed that  he  be  discharged  with  an  Other  Than
Honorable Discharge, without probation and  rehabilitation.   Applicant  was
discharged on 5 Oct 81.  He served three years, six months and  one  day  on
active duty.

On 5 Jan 93, the Air Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)  reviewed  and
denied a similar request by the applicant.  The AFDRB  found  the  discharge
was consistent with the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the  discharge  authority
and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

In response to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated they  were  unable  to
identify with an arrest record pertaining to the applicant on the  basis  of
information furnished.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request.   The  applicant
did not submit any evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that
occurred in the discharge processing and  provided  no  facts  warranting  a
change to his character of service.

DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his undated response, the applicant states his bounced  checks  were  due
to his alcohol and drug abuse.  He was in full withdrawal  when  he  arrived
at BMT, but beat the  symptoms  because  of  the  rigorous  activities.   He
reiterates his accomplishments during BMT and tech school.   He  finished  a
20-week course in 12 weeks.  At his first base, he worked  extensively  with
the Air Launch Cruise Missile and he NEVER  lost  equipment.   His  drinking
problem never interfered with his flight line work.  He has been invited  to
join the American Legion.

The applicant’s statement is at Exhibit E.
________________________________________________________________


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  warranting  upgrading  the  applicant’s
discharge.  There is no indication in the available record  the  applicant’s
discharge  was  improper.   It  appears  the  applicant  is  requesting  his
discharge be upgraded based on the clemency consideration  of  a  successful
post-service  adjustment.   Although  the  applicant   has   provided   some
information concerning post-service activities,  we  find  this  information
insufficient to warrant approval  of  the  requested  relief  based  on  the
limited quality and quantity, especially in view of the  fact  that  it  has
been 25 years since his  separation.   Should  he  provide  statements  from
community leaders and acquaintances attesting  to  his  good  character  and
reputation, and other evidence of  successful  post-service  rehabilitation,
in particular, evidence showing he has overcome the problem that led to  his
separation, we would be willing to reconsider this case  based  on  the  new
evidence.  We cannot, however,  recommend  approval  based  on  the  current
evidence of record.

________________________________________________________________

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-
02182 in Executive Session on 20 September 2006,  under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

           Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
           Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
           Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:
     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jul 06.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPRS, dated 27 Jul 06.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Aug 06.
     Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, undated.




                                  MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                  Panel Chair