RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03353

   						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

His Place of Entry into Active Duty (PLEAD) on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, from 30 Sep 84, be changed to reflect Lackland AFB, TX rather than “Daytona Beach, FL.” 

APPLICANT CONTENDS:

He completed Officer Training School (OTS) at Lackland AFB, San Antonio, TX and then entered active duty at from San Antonio, TX.  He would like to use the educational benefits offered by the State of Texas. 

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 15 Aug 78.

The applicant’s DD Form 4, Enlistment or Reenlistment Agreement – Armed Forces of the United States, dated 18 May 78, lists his Home of Record (HOR) as Daytona Beach, Florida and his PLEAD as Atlanta, Georgia.  

On 1 Oct 84, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with a PLEAD in Block 6 of “Daytona Beach, FL,” and was credited with 6 years, 1 months, and 16 days of active service.   

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits C and D.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DP2LT recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR), Volume I, Appendix A1, defines PLEAD as: “The place of acceptance in current enlistment, commission, or appointment of an active Service member, or of an RC member when enlisted, commissioned, or appointed for immediate active duty.  For an inductee, it’s the location of the local Selective Service Board to which the individual first reported for delivery to the induction station.” The PLEAD changes only if there is a break in service exceeding one full day, in which case it is the place of entry into the new period of service.

The applicant’s original DD Form 4, Enlistment or Reenlistment Agreement – Armed Forces of the United States, dated 18 May 78, and his initial Extended Active Duty (EAD) orders, Special Order        AH-953, dated 1 Aug 78, both reflect his PLEAD as “Atlanta, Georgia.”  The applicant did not have a break in service from his EAD until he voluntarily separated on 30 Sep 1984, the period covered by his DD Form 214.  His PLEAD is Atlanta, GA. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2LT evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an injustice.  AFR 35-6, Separation Documents, dated 12 Oct 82, Table 4, directs the PLEAD be “the place from which ordered to active duty”.  A review of the DD Form 214 prepared for the purpose of graduation from OTS (enlisted status), covering the period 18 May 78 through 14 Aug 78, records Atlanta Georgia as his PLEAD.  The applicant’s records reflect he entered active duty in Atlanta Georgia, then proceeded to Lackland AFB, TX to attend an Officer Basic Military Training Pre-Commissioning course.  Without a break in service, the applicant continued onto active duty effective 15 Aug 78, where he served until his discharge on 30 Sep 84.  The DD Form 214 prepared upon the applicant’s resignation on 30 Sep 84, incorrectly reflects his PLEAD (Block 6) as Daytona Beach, FL.  The DD Form 214, dated 30 Sep 84 remains in error and subject to correction.  There is no evidence the applicant entered active duty from Lackland AFB, San Antonio TX.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 26 Jul 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 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:

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-2015-03353 in Executive Session on 20 Oct 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03353 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Aug 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2LT, dated 26 May 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 28 Sep 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jul 16.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.