RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-00035 COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED:	YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, block 18, Remarks, be corrected to reflect she served in support of Operation DESERT STORM/SHIELD (19 Mar 92 to 31 Dec 99),
Operation DENY FLIGHT (12 Apr 93 to 20 Dec 95) and Operation
DELIBERATE FORCE (30 Aug 95 to 20 Sep 95).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
On 19 Mar 92, she enlisted during the timeframe of Operation DESERT STORM/SHIELD; however, this information was never documented on her DD Form 214.

From Jan 94 to Mar 97, she worked in Airfield Management and filed numerous flight plans during the air bombing campaign against Bosnia-Herzegovina in support Operations DENY FLIGHT and DELIBERATE FORCE; however, this information was omitted from her DD Form 214.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 19 Mar 92.

AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (AB thru TSgt) for the period 19 Nov 93 thru 18 Nov 94 states, “Assisted in establishing procedures for 73 canned flight plans used for Operation DENY FLIGHT.”

According to AF Form 910 for the period 19 Nov 94 thru 18 Nov
95 states, “As flight information publications monitor, she was tasked to take a non-existent program and develop it to provide for three locally assigned and ten deployed units serving in Operation DENY FLIGHT.”

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

On 13 Jun 99, the applicant was honorably discharged and credited with seven years, three months, and six days of active duty service. She was credited with 4 years, 5 months and 18 days of Foreign Service.

According to a 22 MSS/DPMAR memorandum dated 11 Jun 01, provided by the applicant, states her “DD Form 214 should include she served from 2 Aug 90 to 31 Dec 99 in support of Operation DESERT STORM/SHIELD.”

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DP2WR makes no recommendation indicating they cannot verify in their classified systems information prior to 2001. However, they can verify in the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) the applicant had a type 1 contingency temporary duty (TDY) assignment, but cannot verify the location.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2WR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DP2STM recommends denial indicating the applicant did not provide any evidence that her DD Form 214 was prepared in error and the omission of the requested information was counter to governing directives.

DoDI 1336.01, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214/5 Series) and AFI 36-3202, Separation Documents, govern what can be placed on the DD Form 214. Governing directives/policy do not allow the inclusion of operations on a Regular Air Force (RegAF) published DD Form 214 (authorized for Air Reserve Components) unless it is attached to an expeditionary medal, and then if participation is confirmed, it can be recorded in parenthesis behind a respective medal.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 19 Dec 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 he is the victim of an error or
1.	

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.

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-2016-00035 in Executive Session on 13 Jun 17, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 28 Dec 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Memorandum, AFPC/DP2WR, dated 6 Dec 16. Exhibit D.	Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 16 Dec 16. Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 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.