RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03904

 						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Entry Level Separation (ELS) be changed to a medical separation.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was started as a medical separation but during the process it was changed to an ELS because he was in service less than six months.  He was told the ELS would be an honorable discharge.  

He was injured before departing Lackland AFB, TX.  He went to Fort Dix, NJ on a Temporary Duty (TDY) assignment where he received treatment by an ophthalmologist.  He was confronted and counseled by a Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt, E-9) and four Army sergeants and was asked by the CMSgt if she should be discharged.  He stated at the time he did not care.    

He did not admit to having Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) due to his injury while at Lackland AFB, TX but he is now willing to get help.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 28 September 1987, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

On 10 February 1988, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend he be discharged for inability to adapt to the military environment and reluctance to make satisfactory progress in a required training program in accordance with AFR 39-10, Separation Upon Expiration of Term of Service, for Convenience of the Government, Minority, Dependency and Hardship.   The reasons for the discharge recommendation include the applicant’s statement to the first sergeant on 20 January 1988 he had floaters (spots) before his eyes and the condition prohibited him from performing his duties.  The applicant was evaluated by an ophthalmologist and there was no evidence of these floaters (spots).  Because of his mental attitude, the applicant’s commander directed he be evaluated by mental health.  The mental health evaluator found no evidence of a mental illness described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.  The evaluator noted the applicant believed he was unable to fulfill his duties as a security policeman because of his medical condition and separation from the Air Force was in his best interest.  

On 11 February 1988, the staff judge advocate found the recommendation for separation legally sufficient.  

On 12 February 1988, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s ELS.  

On 16 February 1988, he was discharged with an ELS and narrative reason for separation of “Entry Level Performance and Conduct.”  He served 4 months and 19 days of active duty 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/DP2STM-SEP recommends denial.  The applicant has not filed a timely petition.  It has been almost 28 years since his discharge and he did not provide a valid reason for not filing a timely application.  Furthermore, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  There was no evidence of an error or injustice related to the discharge processing.

The record shows that before recommending discharge, his commander and first sergeant spoke to him on his change of heart about serving in the military.  The applicant informed them that the security police career field was not what he thought it would be and that because of the floaters (spots) before his eyes, he would not be able to perform his duties properly.  The applicant’s commander also had him evaluated by mental health.  The evaluator found no evidence of a mental illness as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.  The evaluator concluded it was unlikely the applicant would be willing to complete his military obligations and therefore separation was warranted.  Since there was no medical evidence, the commander concluded the applicant’s inability to adapt and reluctance to perform his duties constituted a basis for separation.  

The ELS/uncharacterized service reflected on the applicant’s DD Form 214 is also correct as indicated.  Airmen are given ELS with uncharacterized service when the discharge is initiated within the first 180 days of continuous active service.  The Department of Defense determined if a member served less than 180 days continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service.  Since the applicant was only on active duty for 136 days when the discharge action was initiated, he must be separated with an ELS.  

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 8 March 2016 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-2015-03904 in Executive Session on 1 November 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
 , Member
 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 September 2015, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM-SEP, dated 29 January 
			  2016.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 March 2016.

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 that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.