RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04659

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to reflect the following:

a. His uncharacterized service be changed to an honorable discharge.

b. His narrative reason for separation be changed from “Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards” to “Released due to Sustaining Service-Connected Disabilities.” 

c. His rank be changed from Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) to Senior Airman (SrA/E-4)  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He sustained several service-connected injuries while on active duty training orders, and these injuries were rated at 80 percent by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).  He submits his DVA rating letter that characterizes his service as “Under Honorable Conditions,” and for that reason he feels honorable is a more accurate characterization and reason for separation.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, as a member of the Air Force Reserve, initially entered active duty 24 May 2010.

The applicant was notified by commander that he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, Chapter 5, Section C, Defective Enlistments, Paragraph 5.14 under Basis for Discharge for Erroneous enlistment.  The specific reason for this action was for not meeting standards to enlist due to having chronic sinus disease.  The applicant waived his rights to consult with counsel and submit a statement on his own behalf.  

On 23 July 2010, the applicant was furnished an entry-level separation in the grade of Airman First Class (E-3), with a character of service of “uncharacterized”, and a narrative reason for separation of “FAILED MEDICAL/PHYSICAL PROCUREMENT STANDARDS.”  He was credited with 2 months 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 Exhibit C and D.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPTS recommends denying the applicant’s request to change his DD Form 214.  In regards to the applicant’s request to change his character of service from “Uncharacterized” to “Honorably Discharged,” and narrative reason for separation from “Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards” to “Released due to Sustaining Service-Connected Disabilities.”  The applicant received an entry-level separation, which is uncharacterized service.  Generally speaking, a Commander gives an entry-level separation when there has not been enough time to make a fair decision as to the overall conduct and performance of the individual.  In this case, the applicant served 3 months and 16 days (2 months active duty, and 1 month and 16 days prior inactive duty).  DPTS would not make a change to his DD Form 214, unless the circumstances of his discharge were changed.   They recommend the Board refer the case to the 319th Training Squadron (AETC), Lackland AFB, TX, to address the commander’s consideration of characterizing the applicant’s service as honorable since that is where the alleged error/injustice occurred.  However, according to the governing instructions, “For airman whose separation is described as void or entry-level, enter uncharacterized.”  Also, a Veterans Affairs (VA) rating for disability is separate from a military rating or evaluation of a member for conditions or situations impacting fitness for performance of military duties.

Furthermore, the request to show the applicant’s rank/grade of senior airman cannot be accomplished according to the governing instructions.  In this regard, the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) shows the applicant enlisted on 8 April 2010 in the grade A1C with a date of rank of 8 April 2010.  

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPTS, with attachments, evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AETC/SGPS does not make a recommendation, but believes the applicant’s discharge was appropriate based on the documentation in the file.  In this regard, the discharge, to include the type of separation, SPD code, narrative reason for separation and character of service were appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority.  SGPS does not have the authority to make the changes that the applicant is requesting and defer to the appropriate review authority.

By way of background, a review of the records provided and medical notes found the following:  The applicant entered active duty on 24 May 2010 and was separated 23 July 2010.  He was separated due to pre-existing medical condition (chronic sinus disease) found as an incidental finding on an evaluation performed due to a head injury.  The applicant did not report a history of sinusitis or respond with a “yes” to item 10j on his DD Form 2807-1, Report of Medical History, dated 10 June 2009.  The applicant may have not known that this condition existed or the severity of his condition at the time of his Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) examination.  

A complete copy of the AETC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 5 July 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.  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-2015-04659 in Executive Session on 15 December 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-04659 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 May 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, ARPC/DPTS, dated 21 Apr 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AETC/SGPS, dated 24 May 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 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 that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.