RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02616 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of 4C (Failed medical procurement standards) on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to allow him to reenlist. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was wrongly diagnosed with psoriasis. He has never had an outbreak of this condition other than his 10-day period in Basic Military Training (BMT), which he does not believe was psoriasis. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 6 Jul 10. On 12 Aug 10, the applicant was diagnosed with psoriasis, a condition which disqualified him for enlistment. The applicant requested a medical waiver, but the waiver request was denied. On 24 Aug 10, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending him for an entry level separation (ELS) for erroneous enlistment. The applicant waived his right to counsel, or to submit a statement on his own behalf. On 26 Aug 10, the discharge authority directed the applicant receive an ELS under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman, due to Defective Enlistments. On 27 Aug 10, the applicant was furnished an ELS with uncharacterized service, an RE code of 4C, a narrative reason for separation of “failed medical physical procurement standards,” and was credited with 1 month and 22 days of active service. On 15 Aug 14, AFPC/DPSOA directed the applicant’s DD Form 214 be corrected to change his RE code from “4C” to “2C” (Entry level separation without characterization of service). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice concerning the applicant’s separation. The applicant’s rash started the first week of BMT and lessoned with treatment during training. A biopsy was accomplished and resulted in confirmation of psoriasis guttate. As this condition and its progression are uncertain and unpredictable, he was disqualified for service. The applicant stated he understood the diagnosis and treatment plan. The separation was accomplished in accordance with established policy and administrative procedures. A complete copy of the AETC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an injustice concerning the applicant’s request for an RE code which would allow him to reenlist. At the time of his discharge, the applicant did receive an erroneous RE code of 4C on his DD Form 214; however, DPSOA directed the applicant’s record be corrected to reflect the proper RE code of 2C. The discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with an ELS. The applicant does not provide any documentation which would result in his receiving an RE code which would allow him to reenlist. Recommend denying any relief beyond that which is being administratively corrected. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 27 Oct 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. Applicant did not file 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. Applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the merits. Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to file in a timely manner. 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-2014-02616 in Executive Session on 19 Mar 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jun 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AETC/SGPS, dated 25 Jul 14. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 15 Aug 14. Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Oct 14.