RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-00037 

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment (RE) code on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, dated 25 Oct 79, be changed from “2P” to “2Q.”  Additionally, he requests a review of his separation code and narrative reason for separation.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His RE code is characterized as “AWOL, deserter dropped from rolls;” however, he was medically discharged and the codes are incorrect.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 12 Oct 79.

On 18 Oct 79, the applicant was seen for knee pain and diagnosed with Osgood-Schlatter’s disease.  

On 23 Oct 79, the medical board recommended the applicant be discharged from service by reason of physical disability which existed prior to service (EPTS).

On 25 Oct 79, the applicant requested discharge and subsequently was furnished an honorable discharge, a “2P” RE code, a “KFU” separation code, a “Failed to Meet Physical Standards for Enlistment” narrative reason for separation, and was credited with 14 days of active service.   

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM-SEP recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  Furthermore, it is not in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. The applicant was separated under AFR 39-10, para 3-8g, on 20 Apr 79 for failure to meet the minimum medical standards for enlistment in the United States Air Force. The discharge authority gave the member an honorable discharge.  The Separation Program Designator (SPD) code, narrative reason for separation, and character of service are correct as indicated on the applicant’s DD Form 214 and were consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction.  Moreover, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

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

AFPC/DP3ST recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice.  Applicant believes the RE code “2P” means he was AWOL, and it does under today’s guidance.  However, per guidance at the time, AFR 35-16 Vol I (dated 15 Feb 79), USAF Reenlistment and Retention Program, the RE code “2P” did not have the meaning of AWOL when the applicant was discharged.  The code “2P” didn’t change to Deserter/AWOL until 18 Jul 91.  Applicant’s RE code “2P” is correct per the applicable guidance in Oct 79 as applicant was involuntarily separated for erroneous enlistment.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3ST evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 16 Jun 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:

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 our receipt of the application, we believe a reasonable date of discovery was more than three years prior to our 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 RECOMMENDS 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-2016-00037 in Executive Session on 9 May 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Dec 15, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM-SEP, dated 1 Apr 16.  
Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3ST, dated 18 May 16,
  w/atchs.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Jun 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.