RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-01236

 						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The notification of nonselection for reenlistment memorandum dated 1 September 1972 be removed from his records.  

His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to reflect he served in Thailand in 1973. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He does not know why there is documentation indicating he was not eligible for reenlistment when his records prove differently or why his service in Thailand is not recorded on his DD Form 214.   

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 10 June 1969 and was discharged on 18 May 1973 with reason and authority of AFM 39-10, Separation Upon Expiration of Term of Service, for Convenience of Government, Minority, Dependency and Hardship, Chapter 3, Section A.  He was credited with 3 years, 11 months and 9 days of active duty service.  

According to a memorandum dated 1 September 1972, the applicant was notified by his commander of his nonselection for reenlistment for poor duty performance in accordance with AFR 35-16, USAF Career Motivation Program. On 8 September 1972, the applicant acknowledged his nonselection for reenlistment.  

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP3ST recommends denial for the request to change his records to reflect he was eligible to reenlist.  The applicant is requesting a correction of his records from 46 years ago.  He should have known or could have known of this information in his records.  He does not provide any proof of an error or injustice in reference to his denial of reenlistment.   

The facts about the applicant’s nonselection for reenlistment are limited now, 46 years later.  Although the applicant had a good evaluation report for the period of 6 October 1972 through 31 January 1973, this was after his nonselection for reenlistment on 1 September 1972.  The nonselection for reenlistment was supported by the Classifications Board’s recommendation on 22 May 1972 on an AF Form 1098A, Classification Board Action, which stated the applicant had not applied himself and that he did not possess sufficient knowledge for award of the 3-skill level and recommended he be removed from training.  Guidance from 1972 required a review of airmen nonselected for reenlistment and the AF Form 324, Career Counseling Record, reflects his supervisor did not recommend him for reenlistment again on 15 November 1972.  It appears the applicant also did not care to be reenlistment eligible and did not request reconsideration of his reenlistment eligibility as he had committed himself to discharge stating he felt civilian life would afford him additional opportunities.

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

AFPC/DP3AM recommends denial for correction of his records to reflect he served in Thailand.  DP3AM confirmed the applicant’s foreign service boots on ground at Tan Son Nhut Air Base, Vietnam from 20 October 1970 to 19 October 1971 for one year but was unable to verify any foreign service in Thailand.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3AM 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 February 2017 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed.  While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years ago, in our view, the reasonable date of discovery of the alleged error or injustice was more than three years ago and the application is therefore untimely. However, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.  

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-01236 in Executive Session on 1 June 2017 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-01236 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 March 2016, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3ST, dated 21 July 2016.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3AM, dated 27 October 2016.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 February 2017. 

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.