RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03104

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There was no unjust act warranting his general discharge.  He was informed by administration personnel that his general discharge would overturn after a period of time.  Since his discharge he has tried to obtain Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) benefits, and has been denied due to his general discharge.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 11 Jun 97.

On 28 Feb 98, the applicant was rendered a letter of reprimand (LOR) for writing bad checks.

On 21 Aug 98, the applicant was rendered a LOR for failing to pay debts.

On 22 Sep 98, the applicant was rendered a letter of counseling (LOC) for failing to report to duty at the designated time.

On 4 Feb 99, the applicant was rendered a LOR for writing bad checks.

On 9 Feb 99, the applicant received Consumer Credit Counseling for assistance on making and managing a financial budget.  

On 30 Nov 99, the applicant signed a memorandum indicating his willingness to participate in a special upgrade training program designed to help him meet upgrade training requirements.  

On 24 Mar 00, the applicant was rendered a LOC for writing bad checks. 

On 25 May 00, the applicant was rendered a LOC for being disrespectful towards a noncommissioned officer (NCO).  

On 25 Jul 00, the applicant was rendered a LOR for falling asleep while on duty.

On 18 Aug 00, the applicant was rendered a LOR for failing 2S051B CDC on 24 Jul 00. This was his third CDC failure.  

On 21 Aug 00, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending his discharge for Unsatisfactory Performance – Failure to Progress in On-the-Job Training (failing to pass his career development course (CDC) twice, 2 Jun 00 and 24 Jul 00).  In addition, as a result of the derogatory data cited above he was recommending the discharge be characterized as a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

On 25 Aug 00, the applicant appealed to the discharge authority that: he be given another opportunity to retake his CDCs, or complete his enlistment with an honorable discharge, or receive an honorable discharge in conjunction with his Jun 01 date of separation (DOS).  

On 1 Sep 00, the applicant was furnished a general discharge, and was credited with 3 years, 4 months, and 21 days of active service. 

On 26 Feb 16, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) advised the applicant his appeal to upgrade his discharge characterization to honorable and to change the reason and authority for the discharge was denied.   

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/DP2STM-SEP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant’s request was not timely filed within three years of the alleged error or injustice. It is not in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file.  

Notwithstanding the above, their review of the applicant’s records revealed the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant was discharged based on unsatisfactory performance (failure to progress in On-the-Job Training) having failed his career development course (CDC) two times.  In addition, other derogatory data (disrespect of an NCO, writing bad checks, falling asleep while on duty, late reporting for duty) resulted in his under honorable conditions (General) discharge in accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  They found no evidence of an error or injustice in the discharge processing.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM-SEP 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 4 Mar 16 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.  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-2015-03104 in Executive Session on 19 May 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03104 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Jul 15, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM-SEP, dated 29 Feb 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Mar 16.