RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04615 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Reenlistment (RE) code of “2P,” which he believes denotes Absent Without Leave (AWOL) be changed.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His RE code is wrong. RE code “2P” is an Absent Without Leave (AWOL) code; however, he was never AWOL but still suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 28 Oct 76.

On or about 7 Jun 77, the applicant uttered a check to the US Army Schofield Barracks Commissary store for which he possessed insufficient funds. For this misconduct, he was counseled.

On or about 27 Sep 77, the applicant failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. For this misconduct, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC).

On or about 5 and 6 Oct 77, the applicant uttered a check to the Hawaii Regional Exchange for which he had insufficient funds.

On or about 12 Oct 77, the applicant failed to pay in a timely manner his delinquent Hawaiian Telephone Company bill in the amount of $181.98. For this misconduct, he was counseled.

On or about 8 Nov 77, the applicant uttered a check to the Hawaiian Regional Exchange for which he had insufficient funds. For this misconduct, he was counseled.

On or about 11 Nov 77, the applicant uttered a check to the Wheeler Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Open Mess for which he had insufficient funds. For this misconduct, he was counseled.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

On or about 12 and 29 Nov 77, the applicant uttered a check to the Hawaii Regional Exchange for which he had insufficient funds. For this misconduct, he was counseled.

On or about 12 Dec 77, the applicant was derelict in the performance of his duties by loitering on post. For this misconduct, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

On or about 13 Dec 77, the applicant failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time.

On or about 27 Mar 78, the applicant drove his vehicle off the hard surface of the ramp. For this misconduct, he received a LOC and his military driving privileges were suspended for a period of
14 days.
On or about 2 Apr 78, the applicant failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. For this misconduct, he received a LOC.

On or about 2 May 78, the applicant’s hair did not comply with the standards set forth in AFR 35-10, Dress and Personal Appearance of Air Force Personnel. For this misconduct, he received a LOC.

On 18 Jun 78, the applicant was admitted to Tripler Army Medical Center (TAMC) Psychiatry Service because of multiple family problems. On 22 Jun 78, the applicant was diagnosed by a Staff Psychiatrist with an Adjustment Reaction of Adult Life. The medical provider noted that “our evaluation reveals mild depressive symptoms in a poorly adjusted individual who is experiencing moderate amount of grief over the deaths in his family, and his wife’s departure.” Also, it was noted the applicant responded well to the hospitalization and medication and recommended he be returned to duty with follow-up treatment at Hickam Mental Health Clinic.

On or about 15 Aug 78, the applicant was disrespectful in language toward a superior NCO. For this misconduct, he received a LOC.

On or about 31 Aug 78, the applicant failed to pay in a timely manner his delinquent Hawaiian Telephone Company account in the amount of $158.21. For this misconduct, he was counseled.

On or about 8 Sep 78, the applicant failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. For this misconduct, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

On or about 18 Nov 78, the applicant failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time.  For this misconduct, his
8 Sep 78, Article 15 suspended punishment was vacated.
On 11 Dec 78, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the

provisions of AFR 39-10, Separation upon Expiration of Term of Service, For Convenience of Government, Minority, Dependency, and Hardship, for marginal performers. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, declined to consult legal counsel and to submit a statement on his own behalf.

On 15 Dec 78, the discharge authority approved the separation and on 22 Dec 78, the applicant received an honorable separation, with a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JEM, which denotes “Involuntary Discharge – Minimally Productive/Limited Potential Airman” and was issued an RE code of 2P. He served on active duty for a period of 2 years, 1 month and 25 days.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DP3ST recommends denial indicating the applicant does not provide any proof of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code.

The applicant believes RE code 2P means he was AWOL.	However, in accordance with AFR 35-16, dated 4 Feb 77, the RE Code 2P meant “Separated under AFR 39-10 as marginal performer or to preserve good order and discipline, BMT eliminees discharge due to erroneous enlistment, concealment of civilian convictions, etc.” and did not did not change to Deserter/AWOL until 18 Jul
91.	The applicant’s RE code 2P is the correct code per the applicable guidance in Dec 78, as he was involuntary separated as a marginal performer for committing 18 minor disciplinary infractions.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3ST evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation(s) was forwarded to the applicant on 10 May 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 and the available evidence of record,

we are not convinced the applicant 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.

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-2015-04615 in Executive Session on 25 Jan 17, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 26 Oct 15.
Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Memorandum, AFPC/DP3ST, dated 23 Mar 16. Exhibit D.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 May 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.