RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01881 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her	entry	level	discharge	be	changed	to	medical	and	her characterization of service be changed to honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She	was	discharged	due	to	injury	received	in	service	and	went through a medical board.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 9 Mar 93, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.
On 8 Apr 93, a Medical Board found the applicant’s condition of stress fractures of both talus [ankles] as interfering with training and referred her to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).

On 14 Apr 93, the Informal PEB (IPEB) found the applicant’s condition of stress fractures of right and left talus [ankles] as unfitting, and recommended her for discharge with severance pay with a compensable disability of 20%. On 20 Apr 93, the applicant concurred with the IPEB findings and recommendations.

On 26 Apr 93, the applicant was furnished an entry level separation, for disability-entitled to severance pay, with uncharacterized service, and was credited with 1 month, and 18 days of active service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AETC/SGPS recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice with regarding the medical findings noted at the time of active duty. The applicant was seen at Reid Clinic on her 20th day of training for acute ankle pain. After treatment, the pain increased and a bone scan was ordered which revealed a Grade IV stress fracture of both talus, in both distal femurs and the proximal tibia in both feet. She could not continue in training and was referred to the PEB for final determination. The finding was to separate her with disability for chronic ankle pain which was a result of military service. She stated she understood the diagnoses and treatment plan. Based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s records, this office finds the separation was done in accordance with established policy and administrative procedures.

A complete copy of the AETC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPFD recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The IPEB reviewed the applicant’s case on
19 Apr 93 for the unfitting conditions of stress fractures of the right and left talus and recommended discharge with severance pay with a 20% disability rating under SPD code JFL, which was the correct code for disability discharge with severance pay. The applicant concurred with the recommendation on 20 Apr 93 and discharge was effective 26 Apr 93.

The governing directive at the time, AFI 35-4, Military Personnel, PHYSICAL EVALUATION FOR RETENTION, RETIREMENT, AND SEPARATION,
dated 28 Jun 89, states the separation of enlisted members who are in entry level status, as defined in AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, will be described as entry level separations unless the issuance of an honorable discharge is specifically approved within the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force. Initiation of separation proceedings for the purpose of determining entry level discharge characterization is the date the member signs the AF Form 1180, Action on Physical Evaluation Board Findings and Recommended Disposition, from the IPEB. The service of enlisted members may be characterized as General (under honorable conditions when such action is warranted based on the member s military record and a recommendation for such a discharge has been processed according to AFR 39-10: or when directed by official’s within the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force. Based on the documentation provided, this office finds the separation was done in accordance with the directive in place at the time of separation and it is recommended to deny the applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  the applicant on 8 Dec 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:
After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. Applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. Applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the merits. Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to file in a timely manner.

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-2014-01881 in Executive Session on 28 Jul 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 28 Aug 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Memorandum, AETC/SGPS, dated 18 Nov 14. Exhibit D.	Memorandum, AFPC/DPFD, dated 25 Nov 14. Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Dec 14.