RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04545
		COUNSEL: 
		HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His narrative reason for separation and separation code of 
“JPD” which denotes “Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure” be changed.  

2.  His reentry (RE) code of “2C” which denotes “Involuntarily 
separated with an honorable discharge; or entry-level separation 
without characterization of service” be changed to allow him to 
reenlist in the Armed Forces.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant through counsel submits a six page legal brief 
with attachments with the following major contentions: 

1.  His discharge was inequitable and legally insufficient when 
compared to other discharges for Alcohol and Drug Abuse 
Prevention and Treatment (ADAPT) failure around the Air Force.    

2.  He did not fail the ADAPT program because he was unwilling 
or refused treatment. Instead, like most alcohol abusers, he 
suffered a minor relapse and was deemed “unable” to complete 
treatment.  

3.  He was treated differently and more harshly than other 
members of the Air Force under the same or similar 
circumstances.  

4.  His commander and the ADAPT Program Manager did not provide 
adequate notice and denied him any meaningful opportunity to 
respond by not providing evidence and/or asserting as fact 
information which was not supported by evidence.

5.  The discharge was unsubstantiated and the available evidence 
demonstrates by more than a preponderance that he should have 
been rehabilitated and retained.

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of a 
six-page legal brief, Letter of Reprimand (LOR), and letters of 
support.  


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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 8 Nov 05, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.

On or about 24 Dec 06, the applicant unlawfully assaulted airman 
first class --------- in the face with his hand causing his nose 
to bleed in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military 
Justice (UCMJ) and was drunk and disorderly, in violation of 
Article 134, UCMJ.  For this misconduct, he received an Article 
15, UCMJ, reduction to the grade of airman, forfeiture of 
$250.00 pay, restriction to the base for 30 days and 15 days 
extra duty.  In addition, he was enrolled in the ADAPT program, 
which he successfully completed.   

On 2 Aug 08, the applicant became intoxicated and then broke 
into private property.  For this misconduct, he received a 
Letter of Reprimand (LOR).  

On 8 Aug 08, the applicant was diagnosed as an alcohol abuser 
and enrolled into the ADAPT program for a second time in his Air 
Force career.

On 7 Nov 08, the applicant failed the ADAPT program because of 
his inability to complete the treatment program, which included 
his inability to abstain from consuming alcohol and lack of 
integrity to come forward and ask for help.  

The applicant was notified of his commanders intent to recommend 
he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 
36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman for failure in 
ADAPT program due to inability.  

The Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and found it legally 
sufficient to support a discharge and recommended that he 
receive an honorable discharge without probation and 
rehabilitation.

On 6 Mar 09, the applicant was discharged with service 
characterized as honorable in the grade of senior airman.  He 
served 3 years, 3 months and 29 days of total active service. 

On 3 Aug 09, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Air Force 
Discharge Review Board (AFDRB).  

On 28 Sep 10, the AFDRB determined that the discharge was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge regulation, and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full 
administrative due process (see AFDRB Hearing Record at Exhibit 
B).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change his RE code.  DPSOA states that the applicant’s RE code 
2C is required IAW AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, based 
on his involuntary discharge with honorable character of 
service.  

The applicant does not provide proof of an error or injustice in 
reference to his RE code.

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change his narrative reason for separation and separation code.  
DPSOR states that based on the documentation on file in the 
applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge to include 
the narrative reason for separation and separation code was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority.  

The applicant does not provide proof of an error or injustice 
that occurred in the discharge processing. 

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 17 Feb 13, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  As of this date, this office has not received a 
response.  

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After 
careful consideration of the circumstances of this case and the 
evidence provided by the applicant, we are not persuaded the 
applicant’s narrative reason for separation, separation code and 
reentry code are in error or unjust.  Therefore, we agree with 
the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility and adopt their rationale, as the basis 
for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice.  In addition, based on the available 
evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with 
the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and 
within the commander's discretionary authority.  The applicant 
has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the 
narrative reason for separation or the assigned RE code was 
contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly 
harsh, or disproportionate to other members similarly situated.  
In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application. 

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

________________________________________________________________

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-2012-04545 in Executive Session on 2 Jul 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
      Member
			Member







The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-04545 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Apr 11, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 11 Feb 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 28 Nov 12.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 13.




								
								Panel Chair