RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS.


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01875

   						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His home of record (HOR) and Place of Enlistment (POE) reflected in Block 7 of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed from Tucson, AZ to San Antonio, TX. 


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was a resident of Texas prior to entering the Air Force.  He was unable to review his DD Form 214 before it was printed.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 8 Oct 03.  

On 8 Oct 03, the applicant signed a DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States, listing Tucson, AZ as his HOR, and the Phoenix, AZ Military Entry Processing Station (MEPS) as the POE. 

On 1 Apr 10, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 6 years, 5 months, and 24 days 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:

AFPC/DPSIPE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) states, “The place recorded as the home of the individual when reinstated, reappointed, or reenlisted remains the same as that recorded when commissioned, appointed, enlisted or inducted, or ordered into the tour of active duty, unless there is a break in service of more than one full day.  Only if a break in service exceeds one full day, may the member change the HOR.”  The HOR is the location identified by the individual upon entering the service, not a location where the individual is later assigned, nor a location selected for convenience or affiliation.  Domicile or legal residence may change, but the HOR will not.

In accordance with AFI 36-2608, Military Personnel Records System, the DD Form 4/1, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States, is the source document for Home of Record.  The applicant listed Tucson, AZ has his HOR when he signed his DD Form 4.  In addition, his SF 86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions, indicates he lived in Tucson, AZ from 1995 until his enlistment, and he enlisted in Tucson, AZ.  The applicant did not provide proof he was living in Texas on the date of his initial enlistment.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIPE evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 12 Nov 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:

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 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-2015-01875 in Executive Session on 27 Jan 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Apr 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIPE, dated 4 Nov 15.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Nov 15.







1