RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01495 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While assigned to Whitman Air Force Base the applicant was in a horrible environment. The pressure of the surrounding area and its racist environment contributed to his attitude. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 16 Sep 86. On 31 May 87, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for being 90 days delinquent on his NCO Club Bill. On 11 Jul 87, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for removing food without annotating the Launch Control Facility log. On 3 Sep 87, the applicant received an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, for wrongfully appropriating food items from the Launch Control Facility. He received 30 days of Correctional Custody. On 19 Sep 87, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling for being late to guard mount. On 30 Mar 88, the applicant received a Letter for Reprimand for a civilian conviction of shoplifting at an off-base establishment. On 4 May 88, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend discharge for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline in accordance with AFR 39-10, Separation Upon Expiration of Term of Service, for Convenience of Government, Minority, Dependency and Hardship, Chapter 5, Section H, paragraph 5-47b. The commander recommended the applicant’s service be characterized as General. The applicant consulted counsel and waived his right to submit statements on his behalf. On 12 May 88, the Base Staff Judge Advocate concluded the record contained sufficient evidence and found no errors or irregularities in the case. On 17 May 88, the discharge authority approved the discharge with a characterization of General (Under Honorable Conditions). Probation and rehabilitation were considered; however, suspension of the approved discharge was not deemed appropriate. On 19 May 88, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, and was credited with 1 year, 8 months, and 4 days of active service. On 31 Jul 89, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied a similar request. The AFDRB concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirement of the discharge regulations, was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 28 Apr 14 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The application was not filed within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or could have been discovered, as required by Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (10 USC 1552), and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. Although the applicant asserts a date of discovery which would, if correct, make the application timely, the essential facts which gave rise to the application were known to applicant long before the asserted date of discovery. Knowledge of those facts constituted the date of discovery and the beginning of the three-year period for filing. Thus, the application is untimely. 2. Paragraph b of 10 USC 1552 permits us, in our discretion, to excuse untimely filing in the interest of justice. We have carefully reviewed applicant's submission and the entire record, and we do not find a sufficient basis to excuse the untimely filing of this application. The applicant has not shown a plausible reason for delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice that require resolution on the merits at this time. Accordingly, we conclude that it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the untimely filing of the application. 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-2014-01495 in Executive Session on 16 Dec 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Mar 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Apr 14.