RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04223

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her narrative reason for separation (INVOL DISCHARGE: 2D LT NOT QUALIFIED FOR PROMOTION) be removed from her DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge.

2.  She receive the rank of First Lieutenant (O-2) and all back pay associated with the rank.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Conflicts with her leadership led to discrimination and retaliation resulting in her not being promoted and involuntarily discharged.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 12 Jan 83.

On 5 Apr 85, the applicant was rendered a referral AF Form 707, Officer Effectiveness Report (OER), with an overall “3” rating. 

On 5 Aug 85, the Air Force Personnel Board (AFPB) met to determine the applicant’s case and found she was not qualified for promotion to the grade of first lieutenant.

On 9 Sep 85, the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) determined the applicant was not qualified for promotion to O-2, and directed immediate discharge.  

On 23 Sep 85, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with two years, eight months, and twelve 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 (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SP does not provide a recommendation, but provides background information concerning the applicant.  The Air Force Personnel Board (AFPB) determined the applicant was not qualified for the promotion to the grade of O-2, and provided that recommendation to the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF).  Subsequently, SECAF determined the applicant was not qualified for promotion to O-2 and directed immediate discharge. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2SP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2STM-SEP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The narrative reason for separation and corresponding Separation Program Designator (SPD) code are correct as indicated on the applicant’s DD Form 214.  AFR36-12, Administrative Separation of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers of the Air Force, paragraph 3-7b states that “the active status of deferred officers who fail selection for promotion for the second time because they are considered by a selection board and not recommended for promotion to their next higher grade or are examined and found not qualified for federal recognition in their next higher grade must be terminated and they must be discharged.”  The master personnel records indicated that the applicant was considered not qualified for promotion, therefore, discharge action was taken in accordance with the governing directive at the time.  

The applicant has not filed a timely application.  It has been almost 31 years since the applicant’s discharge.  Furthermore, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the discharge processing.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM-SEP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 24 Aug 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:

1.  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 she 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.

2.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

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-2015-04223 in Executive Session on 20 Oct 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-04223 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Sep 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2SP, received 9 Aug 16.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM-SEP, dated 15 Aug 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Aug 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 that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.