RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04352

 						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His original discharge was in accordance with AFR 39-14, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  However, he was disabled while in training when a sergeant tried to murder him.  He is unable to get civilian work and would like a medical discharge so he can receive disability.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 20 August 1959, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

On 17 November 1959, his commander recommended he be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-14, paragraph 2, Convenience of the Government.  The specific reason for the recommendation of discharge was that the applicant was unable to adjust socially or emotionally to service life.  His Basic Training Record, dated 17 November 1959, reflects he refused to participate in training due to religious beliefs.  He was referred to the Student Aptitude Board which concluded on 17 November 1959 he was not motivated and did not possess the desire to remain in service.  The board stated the applicant expressed an immature attitude and recommended separation.    

On 19 November 1959, he was honorably discharged under AFR 39-14, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 2, Convenience of the Government.  He served 2 months and 29 days of active duty service.    

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM-SEP makes no recommendation and states the decision to award a disability is not within their purview.  However, they note the applicant has not filed a timely petition.  It has been 56 years since his discharge.  Furthermore, the discharge was within 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 in the discharge processing.    

Although the applicant alleges an incident of being attacked and beaten while in Basic Military Training (BMT), DP2STM-SEP was unable to confirm or deny these allegations.  According to his record, the applicant refused to perform training due to religious beliefs within days of his arrival at BMT.  A board was convened and it was determined that his continued service was not in the best interest of the Air Force; therefore, discharge action was initiated.  DP2STM-SEP concurs with the assessment.    

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

BCMR IMA Medical Consultant recommends denial.  There were no medical records or official documentation of any health related illnesses or injuries submitted.  The Medical Consultant notes a memorandum to the National Personnel Council Records Center (NPRC) dated 27 August 2000 alleging an assault while on active duty; however, there were no official reports or official documents to support the statements in the applicant’s letter.  Therefore, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to support these alleged events and there is no evidence of an error or injustice in the type of administrative discharge received.  

A complete copy of the BCMR IMA Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 7 June 2016 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 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-2015-04352 in Executive Session on 1 December 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 September 2015.  
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM-SEP, dated 1 March 2016.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, BCMR IMA Medical Consultant, dated
			  4 April 2016.  
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 June 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.