RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03846 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1.  His reenlistment (RE) code of 2P be changed to reflect an RE code for medical reasons. 2.  His type of discharge be changed to reflect Honorable, medical conditions. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His RE code 2P indicates he was absent without leave (AWOL), and that is not true. He was discharged due to a shoulder injury, for which had received surgery prior to entering military service. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 23 Jan 79. On 26 Feb 79, the applicant reported to the medical clinic with complaint of right shoulder pain. Applicant stated he had re-injured his right shoulder during exercises on the confidence course. On 5 Mar 79, a medical physician recommended the applicant be discharged from the service for an existed prior to service (EPTS) medical condition. On 14 Mar 79, a medical evaluation board (MEB) recommended the applicant be discharged from the service by reason of physical disability which existed prior to service and has not been aggravated permanently thereby. On 14 Mar 79, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 1 months, and 22 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 Exhibit C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. A review of the applicant’s records revealed that on 26 Feb 79, he reported to the medical clinic complaining of right shoulder pain. X-Rays revealed an EPTS surgical clavicle excision that was not aggravated by military service. The applicant stated he understood the diagnoses and treatment. Subsequently he was processed for an entry level separation. The discharge to include the type of separation, SPD code, narrative reason for separation and character of service were appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. A complete copy of the AETC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant was discharged on 14 Mar 79 under AFR 39-10, Separation Upon Expiration of Term of Service, for Convenience of Government, Minority, dependency and Hardship, para 3-8g “Erroneous Enlistment” with an honorable character of service after completing 1 month and 22 days of service. On 14 Mar 79, the 3700 PRG/CC approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-10 para 3-8g with an honorable character of service. The applicant believes the RE Code 2P means he was AWOL, however, per AFR 35-16, USAF Reenlistment and Retention Program, dated 15 Feb 79, RE code 2P meant: Separated under AFR 39-10 as marginal performer or to preserve good order and discipline, BMT eliminees discharge due to erroneous enlistment, concealment of civilian convictions, etc. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant’s records revealed he was medically cleared to enter military service, with knowledge by officials that he had previously experienced shoulder pain requiring surgical treatment. However, after having presented with symptoms of pain after entering military service, all medical officials determined that his shoulder ailment causing the pain existed prior to service and was not permanently aggravated by military service. As such, the applicant would not have been eligible for a compensable medical discharge under AFM 35-4, Physical Disability, or today’s AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and Separation. It is interesting to note that under today’s policies, the applicant’s service would have been uncharacterized as an Entry Level Separation. Although not officially stamped as requiring a “waiver” for his pre-existing surgery, the Consultant provided the following extract from DoDI 1332.18, Disability Evaluation System (DES); “Members who entered the service with a medical waiver for a pre-existing condition and who are subsequently determined unfit for the condition will not be entitled to disability separation or retired pay unless military service permanently aggravated the condition. Members granted medical waivers will be advised of this provision at the time of waiver application and when it is granted.” Nevertheless, the Medical Consultant conceded that the applicant was cleared to enter military service and that he may have been asymptomatic and presumed fit upon entry to military service; which then raises reasonable suspicions as to whether his shoulder was permanently aggravated by his military service. However, the Medical Consultant had no forensic clinical history and examination upon which to determine or question the mechanism of the applicant’s reported injury on a confidence course, the duration of those symptoms, or response to treatment, to suggest the likelihood of permanent aggravation. Making such a determination, now three decades since discharge and absent compelling evidence, would be based upon conjecture. Thus, the Consultant cannot invalidate, through objective evidence, the conclusions reached by medical officials familiar with applicant’s clinical presentation and prognosis for recovery at the time of discharge. Additionally, even if symptomatic at this point in time, it cannot be refuted that the symptoms he may currently experience are likely the result of further natural progression of the disease process over time. A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 26 May 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit 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. 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-2014-03846 in Executive Session on 14 Jul 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03846 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Sep 14. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AETC/SGPS, dated 9 Mar 15. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 8 Apr 15. Exhibit E.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, Dated 29 Apr 15. Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 May 15.