RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03914 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was treated unfairly as well as molested and sexually harassed by those in authority over him. The applicant provides no rationale as to why his failure to timely file should be waived in the interest of justice. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, on 9 Apr 86, he enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 21 Jun 88, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his discharge from the Air Force for Minor Disciplinary Infractions, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Section H, paragraph 5-46. The reasons for this action were: a. On 29 Oct 86, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for assaulting two fellow airmen and consuming alcohol while under the age of 21. b. On or about 18 Mar 87, the applicant operated his privately owned vehicle without headlights, for which he received a traffic ticket. c. On 21 Apr 87, the applicant drove his vehicle inattentively, resulting in a fixed object accident, for which he received a traffic ticket. d. On 23 Jun 87, the applicant received a LOR for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 6 different occasions. e. On 17 Aug 87, the applicant received a LOR for escorting an unauthorized individual into a secure area. f. On 7 Sep 87, the applicant failed to dim his vehicle lights due to inoperable low beams, for which he received a traffic ticket. g. On 14 Dec 87, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. h. On 25 Feb 88, the applicant received a LOC for failing to obey a lawful order. i. On 2 Mar 88, the applicant received a LOC for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. j. On 18 Apr 88, the applicant received a LOC for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. k. On 10 May 88, the applicant received a LOR/Unfavorable Information File (UIF) for misuse of a government phone. l. On 18 May 88, the applicant’s commander issued him nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. On 21 Jun 88, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, and on 23 Jun 88, he consulted counsel and submitted statements in his behalf. On 30 Jun 88, the case was found to be legally sufficient and on the same date, the discharge authority approved the commander’s recommendation, directing the applicant’s administrative discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 1 Jul 88, the applicant received an UOTHC discharge for unfitness and was credited with 2 years, 2 months and 23 days of total active service. On 3 Dec 90, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his general discharge to an honorable discharge and to change the narrative reason for separation, indicating the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations and was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority. The AFDRB concluded that the applicant’s contention and his testimony that his discharge was too harsh were not sufficient to establish that there was any inequity in the character of his discharge. Additionally, the AFDRB concluded that the applicant’s contention that he was unfairly harassed was not supported by the record or by his testimony. Lastly, the AFDRB concluded that the applicant’s contention that he was disadvantaged by his ethnic and cultural background was not supported by the record or his testimony to find that this was a basis for his disciplinary problems. On 9 Oct 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. The 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. The 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-2014-03914 in Executive Session on 10 Jun 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03914 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Sep 14. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Oct 14, w/atch.