RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01436 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The characterization of his discharge be upgraded from “Undesirable” to “Honorable” due to medical injuries. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was in a motor vehicle accident severely injuring his back and his knees requiring six months in traction. His doctor advised him not to lift anything heavy, but upon returning to work, his commanding officer wanted him to go back to lifting heavy weight. When he told the commander he couldn’t, he was thrown into jail. He further contends that he had a terrible attorney resulting in his “Undesirable” discharge instead of a medical discharge. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 29 Sep 54. On 23 Aug 55, the applicant committed “failure to repair,” and was punished with 2 weeks of extra duty (2 hrs a day from 1 through 14 Sep 55). On 21 Dec 55, the applicant committed “wrongfully appropriate,” Article 121, and was punished with 2 weeks restriction (21 Dec 55 through 4 Jan 56). On 11 May 56, the applicant was furnished an undesirable discharge. On 21 May 15, SAF/MRBR sent the applicant the Upgrade of Discharge – Clemency Information Bulletin (Exhibit C). On 15 Jun 15, the applicant responded to SAF/MRBR’s Clemency Information Bulletin. He contended he did not need any letters from the FBI, because he knew what he did and when he did it, i.e.: cashing an unauthorized check immediately after his discharge, later apprehended by the FBI, and incarcerated for 11 months. In support of upgrading his discharge for clemency, he provided various certificates awarded post-service to include a 1995 Associate in Applied Science in Criminal Justice Administration from Texarkana College, membership in the International Association of Investigators and Special Police (Exhibit D). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by AFLOA/JAJM, which is located at Exhibit E, the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit F, and AFBCMR IMA Medical Consultant, which is located at Exhibit G. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. They reviewed the best copies of the applicant’s fire-damaged record. The records revealed that on 1 Sep 55 he received nonjudicial punishment for Failure to Repair, and on 21 Dec 55, he received nonjudicial punishment for wrongful appropriation of a motor vehicle in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. He was later tried by a summary court-martial in 1955 (for theft of a motor vehicle) and in a special court-martial in Mar 56 (for theft of other items). Records revealed that a 23 May 55 medical provider memorandum indicated that at the time, the applicant was not suffering from any physical impairments requiring further treatment that would qualify him for separation for physical disability. Documentation showed that the applicant was afforded all of his rights and there was a legal basis for his discharge from the Air Force with a less than honorable characterization. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit E. AFPC/DPSOR-SEP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant has not filed a timely petition; it’s been 59 years since the applicant was discharged with no valid reason for not filing an application within three years of discharge. Notwithstanding the untimely application, a review of the applicant’s fire-damaged records (1973 National Personnel Records Center fire) revealed he was involved in several incidents during his short military career. A few of the incidents resulted in him receiving restriction to barracks, forfeiture of pay, hard-labor, and instances of confinement. They opine that based on the documentation they could review; the discharge process was consistent with procedures and requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority. Therefore, the separation code designator (SPD)/separation code number (SPN), narrative reason for separation and character of service are correct as indicated on the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR-SEP evaluation is at Exhibit F. AFBCMR IMA Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant’s fire-damage records document multiple disciplinary actions resulting from unsatisfactory performance during the limited term of active duty service. Though partially destroyed, a “Certificate” issued by the USAF Hospital at Castle AFB, on 23 May 55 indicated the applicant is “free of mental defect, disease, or derangement…He is not suffering from any physical…which warrant further treatment.” Another partially readable memorandum dated 5 Apr 56 indicates the applicant is “free of mental defects, disease or derangement...He has the capacity to understand the proceedings against him and to cooperate…” There is no discernable evidence that any unfitting medical condition existed at the time of separation thus providing justification for a medical discharge. Hence, the Medical Consultant opined that no error or injustice occurred with respect to administrative discharge with the assigned characterization of service. A complete copy of the AFBCMR IMA Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit G. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant argues that the OPRs are using the fact that his records were burnt to the Air Force’s advantage. He refutes the accusation he stole a car and a spray gun, and he reiterates his contention of having a terrible lawyer, and that the only thing he was guilty of was coming back to base inebriated once or twice. A complete copy of the applicant’s response is at Exhibit I. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. The applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered or, with reasonable diligence, should have been 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, after a thorough review of the arguments and evidence presented by the applicant, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to conclude the applicant is the victim of an error or injustice. 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-2015-01436 in Executive Session on 10 Dec 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01436 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Apr 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Clemency Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 May 15. Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Jun 15, w/atchs. Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 29 Jun 15. Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR-SEP, dated 17 Jul 15. Exhibit G.  Memorandum, AFBCMR IMA Medical Consultant,   dated 29 Oct 15. Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Oct 15. Exhibit I.  Rebuttal, Applicant, received 18 Nov 15.