RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2017-00807

	COUNSEL:  NONE
	
	HEARING:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment code (RE) on his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, dated 28 Feb 78, be  changed from “2P,” which reflects “Absent without Leave (AWOL).   

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His RE code is characterized as “AWOL;” however, he was honorably discharged and the codes are incorrect.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former airman basic.

On 17 Feb 78, a medical evaluation board (MEB) recommended the applicant be discharged from the service by reason of physical disability which existed prior to service (EPTS) and has not been aggravated permanently thereby.  On 28 Feb 78, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, a “2P” RE code, a “KFU” separation code, a “Failed to Meet Physical Standards for Enlistment” narrative reason for separation, and was credited with 29 days of active service.  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denying the application, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice.  The applicant believes the RE code “2P” means he was AWOL, and it does under today’s guidance.  However, the applicant was discharged in 78 and per the guidance at that time, AFR 35-16, (dated 4 Feb 77), USAF Reenlistment and Retention Program, the RE Code “2P” did not mean AWOL, but stood for involuntarily separated for erroneous enlistment.  As such, the applicant’s records reflect the correct RE code.  

The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 8 Mar 18 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2SSM and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  Moreover, the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application.  The Board finds the application untimely and concludes it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2017-00807 in Executive Session on 26 Jul 18:

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, dated 6 Feb 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, w/atch, dated 6 Mar 18.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 8 Mar 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.