RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03302 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, is in error. The paper work from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) which rated him at 70 percent for service connected disability compensation states he was honorably discharged. He requests the correction for peace of mind and benefits which he may be entitled. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 11 July 1986, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. In a letter dated 4 August 1989, the Noncommissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC), Drug/Alcohol Abuse Control wrote that the applicant was entered into the Substance Awareness Reorientation and Treatment program on 30 May 1989. He was referred as a result of his Driving While Under the Influence (DWI) arrest and that the applicant had been in alcohol rehabilitation twice prior to the incident. The letter also states the applicant’s attitude toward rehabilitation was poor and that he had no plans or goals for the future to deal with his alcoholism. On 15 August 1989, the applicant was notified by his commander he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force in accordance with AFR 39-10, Separation Upon Expiration Term of Service, for Convenience of the Government, Minority, Dependency and Hardship, with a general (under honorable conditions) or Under Other than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge. The reasons for the recommendation include discredit to the Air Force by being convicted in British courts twice for DWI, failure to drive without due care and attention, failing to stop after an accident and failing to report an accident. The applicant was advised of his right to consult counsel and submit statements in his own behalf. On 15 August 1989, the applicant acknowledged the discharge notification and that he understood the action may result in his separation with a general discharge. On 23 August 1989, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) stated the applicant was erroneously notified he could receive an UOTHC discharge. An UOTHC discharge was not authorized in the case. However, the error did not prejudice the rights of the applicant and no corrective action was required. The SJA noted no other administrative errors or legal significance. On 23 August 1989, the discharge authority approved the recommendation the applicant be discharged with a general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation. On 11 September 1989, the applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct-pattern discreditable involvement with military or civil authorities.” He served three years, two months and one day of active duty service. On 9 March 2016, the AFBCMR provided the applicant with an opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit C). As of this date, this office has not received a response. 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-2015-03302 in Executive Session on 3 May 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated undated, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 March 2016.