RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01561 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect the award of Air Medal (AM) with several Oak Leaf Clusters (OLCs). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His flight records indicate that he qualified for an AM with several OLCs while serving in Southeast Asia (SEA) as a C-130 Loadmaster. He has 202 combat sorties to his credit. The clerk responsible for awards, decorations, and activity records failed to complete the necessary paperwork. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, on 14 Sep 64, he entered the Regular Air Force. On 11 Sep 68, the applicant received an honorable discharge, and was credited with 3 years, 11 months, and 28 days of total active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. After a thorough review of the applicant's official military personnel record, there is no official documentation, such as a recommendation or Special Order, in the applicant's official military personnel record, nor was any provided to verify he was recommended for or awarded any AMs. The AM may be awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces, subsequent to 8 Sep 39, distinguishes himself or herself by meritorious achievement while participating in an aerial flight. The AM may be awarded for combat or non-combat action in recognition of single acts of valor, heroism, or merit while participating in aerial flight. Additionally, it may be conferred for sustained meritorious achievement (distinction) in the performance of duties involving aerial flight. The applicant provided copies of his flight record, dated from 30 Sep 67 to 31 Jul 68 which states he was credited with completion of 202 combat sorties; however, there is no documentation verifying where the combat sorties were completed. The applicant has not provided a signed recommendation for the AM and/or any OLC from someone with firsthand knowledge of the applicant's acts/achievements, a proposed citation, or eyewitness statements from those who can attest to the acts/achievements. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID 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 27 Oct 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: Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. After a careful review of the applicant's contentions, documentation submitted in support of the request, and the available evidence of record, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that he is the victim of an error or injustice. We also note the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years prior to receipt of the application, we believe a reasonable date of discovery was more than three years prior to receipt of the application. Therefore, because we do not find it would be in the interest of justice to recommend granting relief, and the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file the application. Accordingly, we find the application untimely. 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-2015-01561 in Executive Session on 29 Jan 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Apr 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 22 Sep 15. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Oct 15.