RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03749 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His place of entry (POE) into active service, as reflected on his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect San Antonio, Texas, instead of Berkin, Germany. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He enlisted in San Antonio, Texas which qualified him for the Hazelwood Act. Berkin, Germany does not exist. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 2 Nov 66. According to the applicant’s initial DD Form 4, Enlistment Contract – Armed Forces of the United States, dated 2 Nov 66, the POE is recorded as Fort Hamilton, Brooklyn, (Kings) NY. On 30 Nov 90, the applicant was released from active duty for the purpose of retirement and was credited with 26 years and 27 days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIPE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. A member's initial DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States is the source document for POE (per AFI 36-2608, Table A2.1, Item 5). The POE is the place recorded as an individual's actual place of entry (Military Processing Station (MEPS) when enlisted, and remains the same as that recorded when enlisted into the tour of active duty. AFPC Enlisted Accessions Branch confirmed that his initialed DD Form 4, dated 2 Nov 70, and all other subsequent documents list’s Berlin, Germany as member's POE. The member does have a DD Form 4, dated 1 Nov 74, which lists San Antonio, TX as his POE as well. However, there appears to not be a break in service from initial enlistment on 2 Nov 70 until separation 30 Nov 90. POE changes require a break in service to be considered valid. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIPE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The Joint Federal Travel Regulation, Volume I, Appendix A1, part 1 states, “The place recorded as the home of the individual when reinstated, reappointed, or reenlisted remains the same as that recorded when commissioned, appointed, enlisted or inducted, or ordered into the tour of active duty, unless there is a break in service of more than one full day. Only if a break in service exceeds one full day, may the member change the HOR.” The HOR is the location identified by the individual upon entering the service, not a location where the individual is later assigned, nor a location selected for convenience or affiliation. Domicile or legal residence may change, but the HOR will not. Per the provisions of the Hazelwood Act, “the veteran must at the time of entry into active duty the U.S. Armed Forces, designated Texas as Home of Record; or entered the service in Texas; or was a Texas resident.” Applying rules to facts, the Enlisted Accessions branch confirmed that the DD Form 4, dated 2 Nov 66, and all other enlistment documents, New York is listed as the HOR. After reviewing the application and military personnel record, the fact that Berkin, Germany is listed as the place of entry into current active service, on the DD214-3, effective 31 Oct 74 will have no bearing on the member’s entitlement to Texas benefits, due to the member’s ineligibility. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIPE evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 23 Feb 15 and 12 Aug 15, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibits D and F). 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. While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years ago, in our view, the reasonable date of discovery of the alleged error or injustice was more than three years ago and the application is therefore untimely. The 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. The 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-2014-03749 in Executive Session on 8 Sep 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03749 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Sep 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIPE, dated 5 Dec 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Feb 15. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIPE, dated 6 Aug 15. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Aug 15.