RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-00418

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment documents be corrected to show her home of record (HOR) is Texas, instead of Wisconsin.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Since she changed her state of residency to Texas in 1996, her last two DD Forms 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States, should reflect Texas as her HOR.  She supports her contention by submitting copies of her Leave and Earnings Statements from Jan 97 and Aug 07, showing her state of residency as Texas.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 15 Jul 87, her DD Form 4 reflected Racine, Wisconsin, as her HOR.  

On 11 Jun 02, the applicant signed her final DD Form 4,reenlisting for five years and two months, reflecting Racine, Wisconsin, as her HOR.  

On 31 Jul 07, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 20 years, and 16 days of active service.   

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:

AFPC/DP2LT recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The authority governing members’ HOR is contained in the Joint Travel Regulation.  The regulation states “Home of Record is the place recorded as the individual’s home when commissioned, appointed, enlisted, inducted, or ordered into a tour of active duty.  Only if a break in service exceeds one full day may the members change the HOR.”  

According to the applicant’s initial DD Form 4, her HOR was Racine, Wisconsin, and her place of entry into active duty was the Milwaukee MEPS, Wisconsin.  Since the applicant did not have a break in service longer than one day, the applicant’s HOR should not be changed due to changing her state of residency.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2LT evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes the points made by AFPC/DP2LT and argues that it is impossible to have a break in service because the reenlistment is completed months before the current enlistment is completed.  She contends she knows several people who retired and their HOR was changed to the duty station they retired from, or it was changed based on the financial records stating the home state was Texas.  She understands the regulation and knows this is partially her fault by not paying closer attention to the documents she signed, but she assumed her military records and financial records matched.  She is trying to get Texas financial benefits for her daughter.  She is seeking the board’s consideration to grant her requested relief.  

A complete copy of the applicant’s response is at Exhibit E.

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, the available evidence of record, and her rebuttal, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that she 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-2016-00418 in Executive Session on 20 Apr 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jun 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2LT, dated 6 Sep 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Dec 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 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.