ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-01576
		
						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NONE INDICATED

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His pay date be corrected to reflect 25 September 2001 instead of 29 September 2001.  

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty, be corrected to reflect the change of his pay date, and he receive any pay lost due to this error.  

RESUME OF CASE:

On 3 February 2015, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s original request that his pay date be corrected to reflect 25 September 2001 instead of 29 September 2001, and his records be corrected to reflect his pay dated adjusted by one day, if it is not changed from 25 September 2001 to 29 September 2001.  Specifically, the Board found the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility.  In addition, the Board did not take any action in regards to the OPRs recommendation to direct that the applicant’s DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect the lost time of 24 October 2010 through 27 October 2010.  It was the Board’s belief that it would be detrimental to the applicant to make such correction since his DD Form 214 did not currently reflect any lost time.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit F. 

On 10 June 2015, by virtue of a DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Record, the applicant requests reconsideration.  He contends that his pay date should be readjusted to reflect 25 September 2001, which is the day he inprocessed into Lackland Air Force Base.  His date was incorrectly changed due to his detainment by Colorado Springs Corrections.  The incorrect adjusted pay date was entered into his service records; however, he has verification from the El Paso County Criminal Justice Center that he was in their custody only from 25 October 2010 through 26 October 2010.  
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit G.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2LT recommends disapproval of the applicant’s request to reinstate his original 25 September 2001 pay date.  In accordance with (IAW) Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2134, Air Force Strength Accounting Duty Status Program (SADSP), it is the commander’s responsibility to determine lost time.  On 18 November 2010, the applicant’s commander issued an AF Form 2098, Duty Status Change, for civilian confinement.  The commander determined the applicant had a period of absence from 24 October 2010 through 27 October 2010, for a total of four days of lost time.  As of this date, there is no source document from the commander withdrawing or changing the amount of lost time for the applicant.  

On 18 October 2010 [sic], the applicant’s unit SADSP manager, with his unit commander’s concurrence, submitted two AF Form 2098s.  One AF Form 2098 placed the applicant into confinement on 24 October 2010 and the other released him from confinement on 28 October 2010, returning him to present for duty.  Since the confinement release date is not counted as lost time, the AF Form 2098 reflected four days of lost time.  Based on the determination of lost time on the AF Forms 2098 and IAW AFI 36-2134, the applicant’s total active federal military service date (TAFMSD) and pay date were adjusted from 25 September 2001 to 29 September 2001.  

The applicant submitted a letter from the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office, indicating he was in custody at the El Paso County Criminal Justice Center from 25 October 2010 to 26 October 2010.  However, this letter in itself is not an official source document to change a period of time that was determined by the commander to be lost time.  IAW AFI 36-2134, it is the responsibility of the commander to determine whether or not the provided letter constitutes that there should be a change to the applicant’s previously determined lost time.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2LT evaluation is at Exhibit H.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He was held in confinement on 24 October 2010 and released on 25 October 2010.  The Air Force evaluation indicate two AF Forms 2098 were submitted on 18 October 2010, placing him into confinement.  The human error which led to writing this incorrect date is the same human error caused by his previous commander annotating the incorrect dates.  How could his commander submit a 2098 to place him into confinement on 18 October 2010, when the incident occurred on 24 October 2010?  
On 25 October 2010, he was not in confinement, but in fact, he was willing, able, and present for duty for his country.  

A complete copy of the applicant’s response is at Exhibit J.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

1.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After a careful review of the applicant's contentions, documentation submitted in support of the request, and the available evidence of record, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that he is the victim of an error or injustice.  We also note the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603.  While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years prior to receipt of the application, we believe a reasonable date of discovery was more than three years prior to receipt of the application.  Therefore, because we do not find it would be in the interest of justice to recommend granting relief, and the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file the application.  Accordingly, we find the application untimely.  

2.  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 application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.  It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01576 in Executive Session on 6 April 2017 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered concerning ABCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01576:

	Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 27 August 2015,    
                 w/atchs.
	Exhibit G.  DD Form 149, dated 5 April 2016, w/atch.
	Exhibit H.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2LT, dated 26 August 2016, 
                 w/atch.  
	Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBMCR, dated 13 December 2016.  
Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 December 2016.  

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.