RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-01882

						COUNSEL: 

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be changed to reflect:

1.  A medical discharge due to injury “in line of duty” (LOD),
instead of “Failure to meet Training requirements.” 

2.  Her “Date Entered active duty (AD) This Period as 24 Jun    80, instead of 9 Jul 80.

3.  Her component of service as Air Force Reserve, instead of
Air Force ANGUS.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her discharge from the Air Force was due to her injuries incurred as a result of an auto accident while in basic training, not due to a “Failure to meet Training Requirements,” which her DD Form 214, Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, erroneously indicates.  An in line of duty injury, medical discharge, would make her eligible for a VA Loan Certificate of Eligibility (COE). 
Also, she disputes her component of service was “Air Force Reserve” versus “Air Force ANGUS,” and that she entered active duty on 24 Jun 80, not 9 Jul 80, as recorded on her DD Form 214.    

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 Jun 80, the applicant enlisted in the Air National Guard.

The applicant initially entered active duty (AD) on 9 Jul 80. 

On 24 Sep 80, the applicant was counseled about her tardiness.

On 29 Sep 80, the applicant was counseled on time allowed for lunch.

On 27 Oct 80, the applicant was counseled about sleeping on duty.  On two occasions the applicant had to be awakened.  

On 18 Nov 80, the applicant failed AKT 23230.  

On 2 Dec 80, the applicant’s last name was changed in her official service records due to marriage.  

On 23 Dec 80, as a result of failing her AKT again, the applicant’s supervisor recommended she not be retained in the 732XO AFSC, and recommended her discharge.  

On 4 Jan 81, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 5 months, and 26 days of active service.   

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant which are attached at Exhibits C and D.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPTS recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  Although the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) shows the applicant has a service-connected disability rating of 100 percent and is considered permanently and totally disabled for DVA purposes, the Air Force did not make a medical discharge determination.  Therefore, they recommend this case be reviewed by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB).  While the applicant enlisted on 24 Jun 80, she did not enter active duty until 9 Jul 80, as indicated by her DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document, and orders placing her on Active Duty for Training (attached).  Her DD Form 214 is prepared in accordance with (IAW) DoDI 1336.01, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214/5 Series), and AFI 36-3202, Separation Documents.  It captures item by item, by authority, the applicant’s pertinent data and military service data.

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPTS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant’s records revealed the reason for discharge was “failure to meet training requirements.”  On-the-Job training record indicates that the applicant failed her AKT on more than one occasion.  On 23 Dec 80, the applicant’s supervisor stated, “I do not recommend that she be retained in the 732X0 AFSC.  I recommend that she be discharged or meet a classification board.”  While the applicant did report sustaining bodily injury in a motor vehicle accident, she was treated for bleeding gums and soreness of gums post car accident with Tylenol and Chloraseptic gargles.  Medical notes indicated “no history of trauma, no aggravating factors.”  She was diagnosed with inflamed spinous process, discharged with observation, no treatment at present.  There were no duty or activity restrictions in general.  

The enlistment documents indicate the applicant enlisted into the Air National Guard.  Although she was on active duty for basic military training and the subsequent AFSC training, the applicant was not considered to be an Active Duty member of the USAF.  Air National Guard and Reserve member eligibility for a VA home loan requires six years of service and an honorable discharge, or placement on the retired list, or transfer to the Standby Reserve or an element of the Ready Reserve, or continued service in the Selected Reserve.  The applicant did receive an honorable discharge; however, she did not serve six years in the Air National Guard. When an applicant does not meet the minimum service requirements, they may still be eligible if discharged to due to hardship, convenience of the government, reduction–in-force, certain medical conditions, or a service connected disability.  Further determination regarding a COE for the VA Loan is not within the purview of the BCMR, and should be resolved by the DVA.

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant 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 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 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 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 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-2016-01882 in Executive Session on 25 Jul 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 May 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, ARPC/DPTS, dated 16 Aug 16.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 5 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.