RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02608

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  Special  Separation  Bonus  (SSB)  election  be  changed  to  Voluntary
Separation Incentive (VSI).



APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Had he known of the subsequent changes in the  VSI/SSB  programs,  he  would
have chosen separation under VSI.

The applicant states that at the time of his request to separate  under  the
SSB program, only the SSB program allowed entrance into  an  active  reserve
status, without forfeiting any separation bonus.   Under  the  VSI  program,
however, any reserve  money  received  was  deducted  from  the  VSI  bonus.
However, subsequent to his  separation,  the  VSI/SSB  programs  changed  to
allow all SSB benefits (i.e., commissary & BX privileges,  ability  to  keep
reserve money, etc.) available for individuals electing VSI.  Under the  VSI
program he would have received approximately $156,000.00 over a  twenty-six-
year period.  Looking at this dollar for dollar,  this  would  be  the  best
choice.  When you factor in the money  being  deducted  because  of  reserve
pay, it changes the whole pictures.  He feels  that  it  is  though  he  was
released from active duty for nothing.

The applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

While serving in the grade of technical sergeant, the applicant  voluntarily
requested release from active duty and was  approved  for  separation  under
the Special Separation Benefit (SSB) program.  In accordance  with  the  law
at the time, VSI payments were  recouped  when  Reserve  pay  was  received;
however, SSB payments were not.

On 7 June 1992, the applicant  was  released  from  active  duty  under  the
provisions of AFR  39-10  (Voluntary  Release/Transfer  to  another  Service
Component for Early Release Program - SSB) and transferred to the Air  Force
Reserve under the SSB program.  He served 12 years, 10 months, and  22  days
total active service.

In Fiscal Year 1993  (FY93),  Section  4406  of  P.L.  102-484  (FY93  NDAA)
amended the law, with  a  retroactive  date  of  5  December  1991,  whereby
recoupment was no longer required from VSI installments by amounts  received
for basic pay for active or reserve service  or  compensation  for  inactive
duty training.  Instead, members would have the option of electing  a  full,
partial, or no offset from their annual VSI installments.

On 5 May 1995, the applicant reenlisted in  the  Air  Force  Reserve  for  a
period of 6 years.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Retirements Branch,  AFPC/DPPR,  reviewed  this  application  and
states that  they  recognize  the  fact  that  the  FY93  NDAA  corrected  a
perceived inequity in the benefits received under the VSI/SSB programs  and,
in this specific instance, they believe  that  an  error  or  injustice  did
actually occur.  The documentation provided by applicant indicates  that  he
received  a  specific  monetary  amount  from  the  Reserves  that  is   not
significantly less than the dollar  amount  total  he  would  have  received
during the same time period if  he  had  selected  the  VSI  (especially  as
Reserve service payments continued to  be  raised  by  the  yearly  cost  of
living  adjustments).   Therefore,  since   the   applicant   has   provided
documentation showing that he intended and did,  in  fact,  serve  with  the
Reserves following separation and he did receive payments  that  would  have
had to be forfeited under the original provisions of law, they  believe  the
change in law does specifically apply to the applicant and recommend  he  be
allowed to change his election.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The  Chief,  Military  Compensation  and  Legislation   Division,   AF/DPPC,
reviewed  this  application  and  states  that  they  sympathize  with   the
applicant and acknowledge that the statutory enactment  of  retroactive  VSI
benefits somewhat altered the circumstances that  existed  at  the  time  he
made his election.  However, as a matter  of  policy,  allowing  individuals
previously separated under the SSB to  switch  to  VSI  would  generate  new
inequities  that  cannot  be  ignored.   Requiring  an  immediate  and  full
recoupment would force applicants to pay  back  many  thousands  of  dollars
more than  the  after-tax  amount  they  actually  received,  and  would  be
particularly unfair for  those  who  were  forced  to  spend  a  significant
portion of their SSB payments  on  transition  needs.   Further,  since  the
recouped SSB funds could not be applied to out-year VSI  payments,  the  Air
Force effectively would be  required  to  pay  both  SSB  and  VSI  to  each
applicant under this scenario.  If, on the other hand, they were  to  recoup
SSB by withholding VSI payments until the  SSB  were  recovered,  those  who
switched  would  receive  a  much  greater  benefit  than  those  originally
separated under  VSI.   This  recoupment  policy  would  create  a  powerful
economic incentive for all SSB takers to switch  to  VSI—including  the  60%
for whom anonymous survey responses indicate the benefit differences  played
no part in their original election.  This  option  would  obligate  the  Air
Force for billions  of  dollars  in  additional  unprogrammed  out-year  VSI
payment.

AF/DPPC states that such new inequities and funding  problems  would  offset
the advantage of allowing an election switch.  In  view  of  these  concerns
and since the applicant has, in fact, received the benefits promised at  the
time of separation, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  15
June 1998, for review and response within  30  days;  however,  as  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law  or
regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After  thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of record and  noting  the  applicant’s  contentions,  we  are  not
persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error  or  injustice.
In this respect, we note the Chief, Retirements Branch  has  indicated  that
they believe that an error or injustice  did  actually  occur;  however,  we
disagree.  In this respect, we note that applicant was  counseled  regarding
the provisions of the VSI/SSB programs in effect at the time he  voluntarily
applied for separation and  elected  to  separate  under  the  SSB  program.
Subsequent to the applicant’s separation, legislation  was  passed  changing
the provisions of the VSI/SSB programs.   Although  the  changes  were  made
retroactive to 5 December 1991 (the beginning of the VSI/SSB programs),  the
legislation did not provide for  individuals  already  separated  to  change
their elections.  The comments  of  the  Chief,  Military  Compensation  and
Legislation Division are noted; however, this Board is  not  concerned  with
any difficulties the Air Force would have with recoupment and  our  decision
is not based on this issue.  To the contrary, our decision is based  on  the
fact that the applicant received proper information  regarding  the  VSI/SSB
programs in effect at the time, made a conscience  decision  to  elect  SSB,
and received the benefits he was advised he  would  receive.  Therefore,  in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the  application
was denied without a personal appearance;  and  that  the  application  will
only be reconsidered  upon  the  submission  of  newly  discovered  relevant
evidence not considered with this application.


The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 28 January 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Member
                  Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Aug 97, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPR, dated 16 Jan 98.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AF/DPPC, dated 12 May 98.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 98.




             BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                  Panel Chair