RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04960

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, blocks 12b and 12d, needs to be corrected to reflect the accurate separation date and total active service time.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged on 23 Jun 88 and needs the dates corrected to support his compensation claim.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered active service on 16 Aug 78, was discharged on 11 Aug 81, and was credited with 2 years, 11 months, and 29 days of active service.  

On 25 Aug 81, he enlisted with the Army National Guard of Delaware and on 21 Jul 84, he was furnished an honorable discharge and credited with 2 years, 10 months, and 27 days net service. 

On 28 Sep 84, the applicant enlisted with the Air Force Reserve for three years.  

On 2 Dec 85, the applicant entered active duty for required training and on 11 Jun 86, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 6 months and 10 days of net active service this period as annotated on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.  

On 27 Sep 87, the applicant reenlisted with the Air Force Reserve for six years.

On 24 May 88, a discharge board convened and recommended he be discharged for drug abuse.  Because the test was commander- directed, an honorable discharge was the only possible result under appropriate regulations.

On 7 Jun 88, the applicant’s discharge was reviewed and found legally sufficient.  

On 14 Jun 88, discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge.  

On 23 Jun 88, according to Reserve Order A-265, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force Reserve.

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:

ARPC/DPTS recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  After a thorough review of the member’s records, points, as well as the documents provided, there were no periods of active duty that were 90 days or more after his last DD Form 214.  The DD Form 214 in the member’s record is for completion of active duty training and is correct.  While the applicant’s discharge date is 23 Jun 88, all of the time was not served in active duty status.  

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPTS 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 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, documentation submitted in support of the request, and the available evidence of record, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been 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-2015-04960 in Executive Session on 28 Mar 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Nov 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, ARPC/DPTS, dated 28 Mar 16, w/atch.
	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.