RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04472 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Airman Performance Report (APR), rendered for the period of 31 Jan 64 through 30 Jan 65, be changed to reflect Udorn Royal Thai Air Force Base (AFB) rather than Southeast Asia (SEA) in Block II, Duties. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While stationed at Clark Air Base, Philippines, he went on a Temporary Duty (TDY) assignment to Udorn Royal Thai AFB. His disability claim is being denied because his performance report states SEA instead of Udorn. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, on 1 Feb 62, he enlisted in the Regular Air Force. According to the AF Form 75, USAF Airman Performance Report, for the period of 31 Jan 64 through 30 Jan 65, the applicant performed duties at deployed sites in SEA. On 29 Apr 66, the applicant received an honorable discharge and was credited with 4 years, 8 months, and 29 days of total active service, including 1 year, 9 months, and 26 days of foreign service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial, based on a 50 year delayed request, insufficient evidence provided by the applicant and the presumed legitimacy of the original crafting of the APR. The applicant has not provided sufficient substantiating documentation or evidence to prove his assertions that the contested evaluation should reflect Udorn Royal Thai AFB. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. Additionally, it is considered to represent the rating chain's best judgment at the time it is rendered. It is determined that the report was accomplished in direct accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. The burden of proof is on the applicant. The applicant has not substantiated that the contested report was inaccurate at that time. The applicant's unreasonable delay regarding a matter dating back 50 years has greatly complicated the ability to determine the factual merits of the applicant's position. Lastly, the applicant states his disability claim is being denied due to the APR mentioning SEA rather than his TDY to Udorn. He has failed to provide a source document of any kind verifying his TDY to the stated location i.e. TDY orders or travel voucher. Without these necessary documents, the report should remain as is. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1 Oct 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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. 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-2014-04472 in Executive Session on 8 Dec 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Sep 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 22 Sep 15. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Oct 15.