RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03669 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of 2C (Entry Level Performance or Conduct) be changed so he can reenlist in the Air National Guard (ANG) or Air Force Reserve (USAFR). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After self-eliminating from Combat Control training, he was told he would be allowed to reenlist into the ANG or USAFR. His application is a little late because he was unaware of the time sensitivity. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 28 Dec 10. On 8 Mar 11, the applicant self-eliminated from training on the second day of the Combat Control Selection Course stating he did not feel he was physically able to complete the course. His training instructor described him as “polite, well-disciplined, and displayed good military bearing.” On 22 Mar 11, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending his discharge with an entry level separation (ELS) for entry level performance or conduct, specifically, due to reluctance to make the effort necessary to meet Air Force standards of conduct and duty performance. The applicant waived his right to counsel and to submit statements in his own behalf. On 23 Mar 11, the applicant’s commander recommended his discharge due to reluctance to make the effort necessary to meet Air Force standards of conduct and duty performance. The case was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient. On 25 Mar 11, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with an ELS. On 29 Mar 11, the applicant was furnished an ELS with a narrative reason for separation of “Entry Level Performance or Conduct,” uncharacterized service, and was credited three months and two 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/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. On 29 Aug 2012, AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, was changed modifying the RE code 3A to include a definition of “First-term Airman (involuntarily separated entry-level) for inability to satisfactorily progress in a required training program without characterization of service; or a first-term Airman (involuntarily separated) for failure to progress in military training required to be qualified for service with the Air Force or for performance of primary duties.” The new definition of the RE code 3A was available from that point forward and was not retroactive. Although there are equity issues for Airman receiving a RE code 2C who were separated for "inability to satisfactorily progress in a required training program without characterization of service" or "failure to progress in military training required to be qualified for service with the Air Force or for performance of primary duties" before 29 Aug 2012, applicant was not separated under either of these provisions, but separated for “reluctance to make the effort necessary to meet Air Force standards of conduct and duty performance" based on self-eliminating from training. Thus, the applicant was not separated under the provisions authorizing the use of the new RE code 3A definition and the RE code 2C is the correct RE code. A complete copy of the AFPC/ DPSOA 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 23 Feb 15, 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: After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. Applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. Applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the merits. Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to file in a timely manner. 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-2014-03669 in Executive Session on 11 Jun 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Aug 14, w/atch. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 4 Dec 14. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Feb 15.