RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01864 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, Block 11, “Primary Specialty Number, Title and Years and Months in Specialty,” be changed from “70270, Administration Supervisor, 11 years and 9 months” to “11270, KC-135 In-flight Refueling Operator, 4 years; Administrative Supervisor 7 years and 9 months.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He qualified as a KC-135 In-flight Refueling Specialist, Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) 11270 for approximately 4 years. He later became medically disqualified from DAFSC 11270 and was reassigned to his former DAFSC of 70250. His DD Form 214 does not reflect AFSC 11270. However, it does indicate that he was a 70270 for the total amount of years he served which is incorrect being that at least 4 of the 11 years were dedicated to AFSC 11270. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the applicant’s DD Form 4, Enlistment Contract – Armed Forces of the United States, on 28 Feb 75, he enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 27 Jan 87, the applicant received an honorable discharge, and was credited with 11 years and 11 months of total active service. According to the applicant’s DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, dated 25 Aug 15, Block 11 was changed from “70270, Administration Supervisor, 11 Years And 9 Months.” to “70270, Administration Technician, 6 Years and 2 Months; 11270, In-Flight Refueling Operator/Technician, 5 Years And 3 Months.” The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is included at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIC recommends approval. The Block 11 information is incorrect as the applicant contends; however, the requested corrections are not fully accurate. The actual AFSC title for 70270 is different and periods of service in each AFSC are not as the applicant contends. The following accurately reflects the applicant’s service for his DD Form 214, Block 11 data: “70270, Administrative Technician, 6 Years and 2 Months; 11270, In-Flight Refueling Operator/Technician, 5 Years and 3 Months.” The AFSC title for 70270 (technician vice supervisor) is correct as of applicant’s date of separation vice the title included in his DD Form 214 and requested by applicant. The periods of service in each AFSC are not correct as presented by applicant, but are correct as stated above using whole years and months of service in the highest skill level in which applicant performed duty. As such, these periods will be less than the total years and months of service. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIC 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 29 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, other than the administrative corrections noted above, we do not find it in the interest of justice to recommend granting relief. Given 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-2015-01864 in Executive Session on 23 Feb 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Apr 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIC, dated 1 Jul 15. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Oct 15.