RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-05177

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Upon completion of the program, he was given a choice to be discharged as completing the program or to return to his group.  He chose to accept the discharge.  The narrative reason on his DD Form 214 does not correctly reflect the situation and could cause challenges for him whenever he needs to show the document.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 7 October 1977.  The applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The specific reason for this action was the applicant’s failure to successfully complete the Correction/Rehabilitation program.  On 3 June 1980, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, waived his right to military legal counsel, and indicated that he did not desire to request retention or to submit statements in support of such request.  On 13 June 1980, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be discharged, with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  The discharge authority approved the recommendation on 22 June 1980.  On 25 June 1980, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  His narrative reason for separation is “Failure to Complete Prisoner Retraining Rehabilitation Program” and he was credited with 2 years, 5 months and 23 days of active service.  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denying the application.  Based on review of the applicant’s request and the master of personnel record, there is no error or injustice with the discharge processing.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA recommends denying the application.  AFR 39-10, Chapter 3, Section B,  paragraph 3-8x(1)(a) states, “Airmen having less than 8 years active military service, who through inability or unwillingness to cooperate fail to satisfactorily complete the prisoner retraining or rehabilitation program, may be discharged under this provision.”  The member requested not  to be returned to active duty.  The applicant’s unwillingness to complete the prisoner retraining or rehabilitation program placed him squarely under this discharge provision.  The member was on notice of the basis for the discharge, as evidenced in the Letter of Notification, and it was, in fact, the basis for his discharge.  The narrative reason as entered, correctly reflects the reason for the member’s discharge.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 20 August 2018 for comment (Exhibit E), 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, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2STM and AFPC/JA 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).  While the applicant asserts a date of discovery less than three years before the Board’s receipt of the application, the Board does not find the assertion reasonable.  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-2017-05177 in Executive Session on 27 September 2018:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, dated 20 November 2017.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 29 June 2018.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/JA, dated 7 August 2018.
Exhibit E:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 20 August 2018.

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