RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02959 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge from the Air Force for a condition that existed prior to service (EPTS) be changed to discharge with severance pay for a condition incurred while on active duty. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was injured and received treatment while serving on active duty, as such, he should have received disability severance pay upon discharge. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 16 Jan 63. On 3 Sep 63, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with seven months, and 18 days of active service. According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, Item 11C, Reason and Authority, indicates the reason for discharge as; Physical disability –EPTS– established by medical board & individual made application for discharge by reason of physical disability, Chapter 9, AFM 35-4. Additionally, Item 32, Remarks, indicates, “Not eligible to receive disability severance pay.” On 31 Aug 76, the applicant was informed by the Chief, Military Personnel Records Division, that they had no means available to reconstruct his medical records that were lost in the fire at the records repository in St. Louis, Missouri. On 3 Jan 77, according to documents submitted by the applicant, his family physician provided an unsigned memo stating that the applicant had been a patient of his since 22 Nov 56, and a review of their records did not show any treatment for back trouble prior to 1963. 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/DPFDD recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Without documents to support the applicant’s contention, they have no reason to believe his case was mishandled. The DD Form 214 indicates he was processed through the disability evaluation system and either through his concurrence with a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) decision or by exhausting all of his appeals, a final determination was reached to discharge him due to a condition that existed prior to service, without entitlement to disability severance pay. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFDD evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant provides his previous personal recollection of events pertaining to the matter submitted with his DD Form 149, with additional details (personal recollection) of his stay in the Lackland AFB hospital Psychiatric ward. He argues that the AF put him in the Psychiatric ward to intimidate him for a week, and then had a Major scare him into signing papers he was told were hospital discharge papers, not service discharge papers. He continues by stating that he has read that the AF used this practice with similar cases to his during this timeframe. He questions the AF’s effort to find and/or restore his records that were destroyed in the fire. He contends that the only document needed to make a determination in his favor is his physician’s statement that he had no back injury prior to entering the service. A complete copy of the applicant’s response to the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: 1.  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. 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. 2.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 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-2015-02959 in Executive Session on 21 Apr 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02959 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 May 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFDD, dated 10 Nov 15. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Dec 15. Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Dec 15.