RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-02954

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, block 26 - Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JFU, Failed to Meet Physical Standards for Enlistment, be changed.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His SPD code is in error.  He has never taken any narcotic unless prescribed and he is allergic to narcotics.  He was in basic training and any narcotic would have had to be given to him by medical personnel.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 22 Jun 82.

On 2 Aug 82, a Medical Evaluation Board convened and found the applicant did not meet minimum medical standards for enlistment, due to a history consistent with bronchial asthma.  They recommended discharge by reason of physical disability, which existed prior to service (EPTS), and has not been aggravated permanently thereby.  

On 9 Aug 82, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with one month, and eighteen 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/DP2STM-SEP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant is of the belief that his SPD code reflects a drug related type of discharge instead of the medical condition that he was separated for at the time of his discharge.  

The application was not filed within three years of the discovery of the alleged error or injustice, or with due diligence, should have been discovered.  Notwithstanding timeliness, based on the documentation on file in the master records, the SPD code “JFU” that was used at the time of the applicant’s discharge stood for “Failure to Meet Physical Standards for Enlistment.”  This is further evidenced by the corresponding item #28 on the DD Form 214 entitled Narrative Reason for Separation, which correctly describes the reason for separation in clear text form.  Therefore, the SPD code, narrative reason for separation and character of service are correct as indicated on the applicant’s DD Form 214.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 13 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 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-2016-02954 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 19 Jul 16.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM-SEP, dated 3 Oct 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 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.