RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2021-03865

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE
	
	HEARING REQUESTED:  NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

Correct her records to reflect an honorable discharge vice general (under honorable conditions). 

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

The information listed on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, is honorable.  The information submitted by the Department of Defense to the Veterans Administration states she was in training from 30 Jul 04 – 28 Feb 06, with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.  This information is not accurate as she was placed in a Line of Duty status, required to return to her duty station, and work as an operational airman for her unit.  The amendments to her orders reflect the commander’s instructions requiring her to return home.  They also reflect her being placed in a temporary duty travel status and receiving per diem.  The dates on her DD Form 214 are 1 Jun 04 – 25 May 06, and she is requesting the system reflect this information.  The current information is not reflective of her actual military service.  In this case, the DD Form has one set of information, and the digital records have different information.  This has impacted her ability to receive Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits, as the discharge, service dates, and type are not correct.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former Air Force Reserve senior airman (E-4).

On 5 Feb 04, according to DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document – Armed Forces of the United States, the applicant entered the Air Force Reserve.

On 31 May 04, according to AF Form 4008, Request and Authorization for Initial Active Duty Training/Nonprior Service, dated 10 Feb 04, provided by the applicant, she was ordered to active duty for training, for approximately 268 days, to be released on/about 28 Feb 05 plus travel time, for the purpose of attendance at Basic Military Training and Electrical Systems Apprentice technical school training.

On 15 Sep 04, according to 82 MDOS/SGOMS memorandum, provided by the applicant, she was recommended for career field reclassification due to injury that occurred on 12 Aug 04.

On 1 Nov 04, AF Form 973, Request and Authorization for Change of Administrative Orders (Reserve Order [RO] XXXX), provided by the applicant, RO XXXX, dated 1 Apr 04, was amended to authorize travel from Texas to Louisiana, and per diem from 3 Oct 04 to 28 Feb 05.

On 22 Feb 05, according to AF Form 973, (RO XXXX), provided by the applicant, RO XXXX, dated 1 Apr 04, was amended to place the member on Line of Duty (LOD) and extend per diem to 1 May 05.

On 23 Feb 05, according to AF Form 973, (RO XXXX), provided by the applicant, RO XXXX, dated 1 Apr 04, was amended to revoke RO XXXX, place the member on Line of Duty (LOD) and extend per diem to 1 May 05.

On 18 Apr 05, according to AF Form 973, (RO XXXX), provided by the applicant, RO XXXX, dated 1 Apr 04, was amended to extend per diem to 24 Aug 05, plus leave days.

On 25 May 06, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge from active duty, with Narrative Reason for Separation:  Completion of Initial Active Duty Training, and credited with 1 year, 11 months, and 25 days of active service.

On 8 Dec 06, the applicant’s commander recommended she be discharged from the Air Force Reserve, under the provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, paragraph 3.13.13., for failure to comply with her requirements for a medical examination as directed for a period of more than 90 days.

On 23 Mar 07, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs Rating Decision, provided by the applicant, she received the following service-connected disability ratings:
-	20 percent, effective 26 May 06, for lumbosacral strain with lumbosacral intervertebral disc syndrome (claimed as compression of L-2, spinal cord condition)
-	10 percent, effective 26 May 06, for status post fracture of left heel
-	10 percent, effective 26 May 06, for right lower extremity, radiculopathy, right L4-5
-	10 percent, effective 26 May 06, for status post arthroscopic surgery with residual scars and limitation of motion, right knee

On 1 Jun 07, according to AFRC/JA memorandum, dated 31 Jul 07, a memorandum of notification of initiation of separation action was sent to the applicant via certified and first class mail to the applicant’s last known address.  Also on this date, an Address Information Request (AIR) was sent to the Postmaster.  On 2 Jul 07, the certified mail was returned marked “moved, return to sender” and the AIR was returned marked “moved, left no forwarding address.”  On 31 Jul 07, AFRC/JA determined reasonable efforts were made to notify the member of the discharge action and found the discharge action was legally sufficient.

On 1 Oct 07, according to Reserve Order XXXX, dated 22 Aug 07, the applicant received a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge from the Air Force Reserve (AFR). 

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

ARPC/DPTTS recommends denying the application.  Based on the documentation provided by the applicant and her personnel record, the applicant does not qualify for an honorable discharge and her record does not require correction.

The applicant’s DD Form 214, dated 26 May 06, does reflect an honorable service characterization; however, the period of time reflected was prior to the applicant’s discharge from the Air Force Reserve, and was strictly for her Basic Military Training and Personnel Technical School Training.

The applicant’s administrative discharge package was reviewed and found legally sufficient on 16 Mar 07, to support discharge of the applicant under AFI 36-3209, paragraph 3.13.13., Failure to Comply with Requirements for a Medical Examination.  The applicant was discharged on 1 Oct 07, with a characterization of General (Under Honorable Conditions).

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 16 May 22 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 14 Jun 22.  In her response, the applicant contended she received a medical evaluation and a disability rating for her service-connected disability from the Department of Veterans Affairs before the start of the discharge action from her AFR unit.  She would like to request the discharge from the AFR be changed to reflect that she had a medical evaluation conducted by the DVA prior to her discharge.  In support, the applicant provided email correspondence between herself and the former First Sergeant from her unit which she contended provided details of her contact with the unit during the one-year period leading up to her discharge.  In the email, the applicant contended she was not aware of the Letters of Counseling (LOC) for unexcused absences, and the discharge notification was never mailed to her.  She had only become aware that her service had ended after the fact.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was not timely filed.

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

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of ARPC/DPTTS and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The applicant received an honorable discharge following her period of initial active duty for training, and was later discharged from the Air Force Reserve with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization.  While the applicant contended, and the unit documentation confirmed, she never received the discharge notification, the discharge package was returned as undeliverable, with no forwarding address, and it was incumbent upon the applicant to ensure her contact information was updated with the unit.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years of discovering the alleged error or injustice, as required by Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  While the applicant asserts a date of discovery within the three-year limit, the Board does not find the assertion supported by a preponderance of the evidence.  The Board does not find it in the interest of justice to waive the three-year filing requirement.  Therefore, the Board finds the application untimely and recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

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-2021-03865 in Executive Session on 18 Aug 22:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 29 Nov 21.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, ARPC/DPTTS, w/atchs, dated 29 Apr 22.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 16 May 22.
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s Response, w/atchs, dated 14 Jun 22.

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