RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS. AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02966 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code 2P be changed to 2Q, reflecting his discharge was due to medical reasons. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The RE code 2P (Deserter or Absent Without Leave (AWOL)) on his DD Form 214 is incorrect. He was discharged for medical reasons and his RE code should be 2Q. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 5 Apr 77. On 8 Apr 77, the applicant was diagnosed with unstable active asthma, which existed prior to enlistment. On 12 Apr 77, a medical board convened, and after reviewing the applicant’s medical records recommended his discharge from the service by reason of physical disability which existed prior to service (EPTS) and has not been aggravated thereby. On 18 Apr 77, the Surgeon General, HQ ATC, medically disqualified the applicant from general military service. On 20 Apr 77, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 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: AFPC/DP3ST recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant was involuntarily discharged on 20 Apr 77 under AFR 39-10, Separation Upon Expiration of Term of Service, for Convenience of Government, Minority, Dependency and Hardship, para 3-8g “Erroneous Enlistment” with an honorable character of service after completing 16 days of service. On 19 Apr 77, the 3700 PRG/CC approved applicant’s involuntary discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-10 para 3-8g with an honorable character of service. He received a RE code of 2P, based on being separated under AFR 39-10 for erroneous enlistment. The applicant believes the RE code 2P means he was AWOL. However, the Air Force discharge guidance in effect at the time of the applicant’s discharge, AFR 35-16, USAF Reenlistment and Retention Program, dated 4 Feb 77, the RE code 2P did not have the meaning of AWOL. The RE code 2P changed to Deserter/AWOL 18 Jul 91. His RE code 2P is the correct RE code per the applicable guidance in April 1977 as the applicant was separated under erroneous enlistment. A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3ST 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 9 Dec 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: 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. 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. 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-2015-02966 in Executive Session on 21 Apr 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02966 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jul 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3ST, dated 24 Nov 15. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Dec 15.