RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-05098 THOMAS D. BOOK COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Special Order ABTS-116, dated 24 Feb 89 and Amendments ABTS-150, dated 22 Mar 89 and ABTS-334, dated 16 Aug 89 be corrected to Title 10 Active Duty Status instead of Title 32 Status. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: According to NGI 36-2001, para 5.3.5 dated 19 Oct 09; “All Air National Guard members attending Undergraduate Flying Training (UFT) programs and Professional Military Education (PME) will attend in a Title 10 Status.” It has always been the guidance for this type of training. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 15 Oct 80, the applicant entered the Air National Guard. On 24 Feb 89, the applicant was issued orders to attend Air National Guard Pilot Training at Williams AFB, AZ from 27 Mar 89 thru 6 Apr 90 under the Authority of DODI 1215.06 Title 32 USC 504/505. On 16 Aug 89, his orders were amended to read 27 Mar 89 thru 31 Jul 89 so he could return home early. On 29 Jun 15, the applicant was relieved and retired from the Air National Guard and was credited with 33 years and 5 months of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PS recommends denial because there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. After a thorough review of the case, to include the documentation provided, they determined the applicant failed to exhaust all administrative remedies that were available to him at the time he filed this application with the Board, prior to retirement. In this particular case, the applicant should have first contacted his Force Support Squadron to request assistance in reviewing his records to determine if an amendment was required. A complete copy of the NGB/A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit C. An additional review was obtained from the NGB because, after retirement, the applicant no longer has administrative remedies through the local Force Support Squadron. NGB/A1D recommends denial because there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. In accordance with the governing regulations at the time of the applicant's training, ANGI 36-2001, Management Of Training And Operational Support Within The Air National Guard, the U.S. Code allowed the Reserve Components to conduct training in either 10 U.S.C. 12301(d) or 32 U.S.C. 505. In the applicant’s case, his orders were published under the correct (Title 32) authority and, therefore, no error or injustice has been found. A complete copy of the NGB/A1D evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 12 Jan 16 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: 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. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2014-05098 in Executive Session on 1 Mar 16, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Nov 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, NGB/A1PS, dated 10 Feb 15. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, NGB/A1D, dated 7 Jan 16. Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Jan 16. 1 2