RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00650 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, Block 26, Separation Program Designator (SPD) code, “JHJ” be corrected to reflect “JHF”. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His DD Form 214 has had a negative impact on his employment opportunities. Employers believe that he was discharged for not performing his job to the best of his ability. While he attempts to explain the fact he was discharged for academic reasons, they still refuse to hire him. As a father, husband and American citizen, he would like nothing more than to be productive and be able to take advantage of the best opportunities available. He respectfully asks that his failed attempt to proudly serve his country doesn’t become a stumbling block for future prospects. In support of his request, the applicant provided an E-mail string which states he was eliminated from training for academic reasons. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Air National Guard on 18 Jan 07. On 23 Oct 07, the applicant entered Active Duty. On 20 Dec 07, the applicant failed Block 1, Test A of his written test, with a score of 45 percent. The minimum passing score was 70 percent. As a result, the applicant was counseled and given two hours of Specialized Individual Assistance (SIA). On 4 Jan 08, the applicant failed Block 1, Test A of his written re-test with a score of 33 percent. The minimum passing score was 70 percent. As a result, the applicant was counseled and given two hours of SIA. He was wash backed to repeat the course of instruction. On 10 Jan 08, the applicant failed Block 1, Test A of his written test with a score of 45 percent. The minimum passing score was 70 percent. As a result, the applicant was eliminated from the course. On 24 Jan 08, the applicant was notified by his commander he was recommending him for discharge for Unsatisfactory Performance in accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, paragraph 5.26.1. The applicant waived his rights to consult with legal counsel and to submit statements on his behalf. The Deputy Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient. On 30 Jan 08, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with an Honorable service characterization, without Probation and Rehabilitation. The applicant was furnished an Honorable discharge, and was credited with three months and eight days of active service. The applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects a SPD code of “JHJ”. 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/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant has not filed a timely petition. It has been almost seven years since his discharge and it was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and within the discretion of the discharge authority. In accordance with AFI 36-3208, Chapter 5, paragraph 5.25 states that “airmen should be discharged when their unsatisfactory performance or conduct shows they are not qualified for service with the Air Force. Performance in the Air Force includes, but is not limited to: work done as assigned duties, military training, bearing and behavior.” The applicant was given opportunities to overcome his deficiencies but efforts met with no success. He failed the same examination three times with no improvement of scores. The commander concluded that the applicant’s downward trend even with additional guidance and SIA was not successful enough for the applicant to meet the standards required for continued service. As a result, discharge action was initiated. The SPD code and narrative reason for separation are correct as indicated. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR 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 7 Jul 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-2015-00650 in Executive Session on 15 Sep 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00650 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Feb 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 10 Apr 15. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jul 15.