RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00990 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His public service employment from 1 Oct 94 to 20 Dec 96 be credited towards fulfilling the requirement for public service entitling him to a full 20 year pension. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When he accepted early retirement at 18 years under the Temporary Early Retirement Authorization (TERA) program, he was told that he could earn a full 20-year pension at age 62 if he worked 2 years at a public service job. The company he worked for from 1 Oct 94 to 20 Dec 96 qualified as a public service job according to what he was told during his retirement out processing. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Air National Guard on 10 Sep 76. On 30 Sep 94, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, voluntarily retired with less than 20 years’ service, subject to PL 102-484 - TERA, effective 1 Oct 94, and was credited with eighteen years, and sixteen 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: ARPC/DPTTR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant retired under the provision of Title 10, USC, Section 8911, on 1 Oct 94 under the TERA program. This retirement entitled him to all of the normal retirement benefits of a person retiring with twenty or more years of active duty except the retired pay was reduced due to the diminished active duty. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)-Cleveland showed he is drawing retired pay for eighteen years and sixteen days of active duty and was retired in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6). TERA retirees could accrue military retirement credit during their “enhanced retirement qualification period” (the period of time from the date of retirement to the date on which the retiree would have attained 20 years of creditable active duty) if employed in public or community service. The employment had to be in one of the following fields: Education, Law Enforcement, Public Health Care, Social Services, Public Safety, Emergency Relief, Public Housing, Conservation or Environment. Qualifying service would then be credited to the member and the retired pay would have been increased at age 62. Even though the TERA project ended in 2008, the former TERA Project Administrator at DMDC was contacted and they advised that the company the applicant worked for from 1 Oct 94 to 20 Dec 96 was not listed as an approved employer for the program. A complete copy of the ARPC/DPTTR 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 25 Sep 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2.  The application was not timely filed. 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; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00990 in Executive Session on 4 Nov 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00990 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Dec 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, ARPC/DPTTR, dated 20 Aug 15. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Sep 15.