RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05542

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Home of Record (HOR) be changed from Palm Harbor, FL to San Antonio, TX.

2.  His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with his 8 Aug 83 separation, 
Item 19, Mailing Address after Separation, be changed to San Antonio, TX.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has lived in San Antonio, TX since Aug 79.  He has never changed his domicile.  He has filed all of his taxes in Texas 
since 1979.  He was discharged in San Antonio, TX and has lived there ever since without a break in service.

The Board should find it in the interest of justice to waive timeliness because he never knew that being a Texas veteran had 
educational benefits until now.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 9 Aug 79, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air Force.  The applicant’s DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment – 
Armed Forces of the United States, list’s Palm Harbor, FL as the HOR.  

His DD Form 214, Item 6, Place of Entry into Active Duty (POE), reflects Miami, FL.  Item 19, Mailing Address after Separation, 
reflects Palm Harbor, FL.  


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his mailing address after separation.  The applicant 
failed to provide supporting documentation that the Florida address was in error.  

On 14 Nov 78, the applicant enlisted into the Air Force, in Miami FL, his POE, and by his signature, verified Palm Harbor 
FL as his HOR.  On 9 Aug 79, the applicant entered active service from Miami Florida.  On 8 Aug 83, the applicant was 
discharged from active service.  By signature, the applicant validated his future mailing address upon discharge being that 
of his father's in Palm Harbor FL and requested a copy of the DD Form 214 be forwarded to the Director of Veteran Affairs 
office in Florida (block 20).  AFI 36-3202 is the governing directive for the DD Form 214.  The information for block 19 is 
provided by the applicant prior to the date of separation from service.  The sole purpose of the address listed in block 19 
(mailing address after separation) is strictly for the delivery of the DD Form 214.  With the applicant already in receipt of 
his DD Form 214, the information in block 19 has no further use, is administrative, and unlike HOR or POE, has no impact on 
veteran benefits or entitlements.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He does not understand the issue with changing block 19 on the DD 214.

At the time of separation he was not sure where his new address would be, so he chose his father's address in Florida.

He never went back to Florida and remained in Texas.  The recommendation from DPSOR may have not taken into consideration 
that it does make a difference and has an impact on his benefits and entitlements especially under the Texas Hazelwood Act. A 
Texas HOR is required on the DD Form 214 to meet the eligibility criteria.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit F.


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was not timely filed; 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 error or injustice.  The 
applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find his assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale 
provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the 
Air Force OPRs and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision the applicant has failed to sustain his burden 
that he has suffered either an error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.


THE BOARD DETERMINES 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-2013-05542 in Executive Session on 9 Oct 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Nov 13, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIPE, dated 13 Jan 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 20 Feb 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Mar 14.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Apr 14, w/atch.