RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02344
            INDEX CODE: 100.00, 128.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  He be released from his PALACE CHASE contract and resignation  from  the
Air Force.

2.  The Air Force pay him $2,326.90.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was exposed to a hostile  work  environment  and  was  the  recipient  of
harassment and intimidation by  his  commanders.   The  harassment  included
professional slander, racial epithets and threats  to  destroy  his  career.
He states that he was forced to sign a PALACE CHASE contract that  they  put
in front of him for fear that the alternative would be irreparable  harm  to
his professional career.  His state of mind at that time was that he had  to
agree to any terms proffered, because failure to  do  so  subjected  him  to
continued harassment and unacceptable risk.  He seeks a reevaluation of  his
military service obligation and the amount of debt due the  Air  Force.   He
asks that the Board release him  from  any  remaining  active  duty  service
commitment (ADSC) and allow him to resign his commission.  Had he  not  been
subject to harassment and intimidation, he would  have  served  his  initial
ADSC at a minimum, and would not have to repay any portion of his bonus.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a  personal  statement  and
other documentation

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 July 1997, applicant requested voluntary release under the  provisions
of AFI 36-3207, Chapter 2, paragraph 2.4.12 (Transfer to Reserve  Components
Under PALACE CHASE).  His application did not  meet  the  deadline  for  the
special draw down program under which he was applying.  He applied  with  an
Exception to Policy Memo, and  included  a  Reimbursement  Counseling  Memo,
dated 8 May 1997.  His  application  was  supported  by  his  commander  and
approved through the Secretary of the Air Force, Personnel Council.   On  24
July 1997, his request for a date of separation  (DOS)  of  1 February  1998
was approved.

On 1 February 1998, applicant separated under the provisions of AFI  36-3207
(Separating Commissioned Officers) and  AFI  36-3205  (Applying  for  PALACE
CHASE and PALACE FRONT Programs) with an honorable discharge.  Under  Palace
Chase which required any remaining service obligation to be converted  to  a
Reserve commitment at a ratio of 3 Reserve  months  for  every  1  month  of
ADSC.  His ADSC date was 4 July 1998.  He was required  to  repay  $6375  of
additional special pay and  $5100  of  incentive  special  pay.   As  of  12
February 1998, applicant owed $9,054.23.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Physician Utilization Branch, Medical Service Officer  Management
Division, HQ  AFPC/DPAMP,  reviewed  this  application  and  states  that  a
determination  regarding  the  merits  of   the   fraud   and   embezzlement
allegations is appropriate and beyond the scope of their  office  to  judge.
Actions  taken  based  upon  the  voluntary  Palace  Chase  application  and
subsequent recoupment  actions  have  been  appropriate  and  would  not  be
sufficient grounds to grant relief.  Therefore,  they  recommend  denial  of
applicant’s request.

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

The Chief, PALACE CHASE,  HQ  AFPC/DPPRSR,  reviewed  this  application  and
states that  applicant  denies  knowledge  of  recoupment  action  prior  to
separation; however, on 8 May 1997, he  signed  a  memorandum  acknowledging
that he was “… subject to recoupment of a portion of  education  assistance,
special pay or bonus money received.”  He states that he signed  his  Palace
Chase application under duress and false pretenses; however, the memo  dated
28 October 1997 requesting an earlier  DOS,  states  “My  flight  commander,
Lieutenant Colonel M, said that he would not permit  two  neurologists  from
the same facility to separate at the same time.  When he was  informed  that
the package should move forward, he asked if I  would  voluntarily  withdraw
my package.  I declined to do so.”  The  Palace  Chase  separation  complies
with directives in effect at the  time  of  his  release.   Therefore,  they
recommend denial of applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force  evaluation  and  states  that  he  was
subject to  harassment  and  intimidation.   He  believed  that  he  had  to
separate before his career was irreparably damaged by  his  commanders.   He
believed he had two choices,  Palace  Chase  or  professional  annihilation.
Colonel G told him privately that he would manufacture evidence  to  destroy
him if necessary.  Palace Chase was the only hope of professional  survival.
 He applied for Palace Chase before the deadline  but  the  application  was
given a pocket veto.  If it was not for the harassment and  intimidation  of
his commanders, he would have served his entire commitment  at  Travis  AFB.
He would have repaid his initial commitment, would have had  ample  time  to
obtain a civilian position and would have  been  able  to  keep  his  entire
bonus.  He states that  he  referred  his  case  to  the  Travis  AFB  Equal
Opportunity Employment Office, but they ignored his complaints.

He signed the  reimbursement  counseling  memorandum  based  on  the  entire
statement - specially the last two sentences.  This document clearly  states
that he has a right to dispute the indebtedness for educational  assistance.
 It further states that the major command (MAJCOM) will appoint  an  officer
or civilian employee to  conduct  an  inquiry  into  the  facts  and  review
evidence that he presented.  He never received any notice  that  the  MAJCOM
had ever initiated such an inquiry.  If such an inquiry did  occur,  he  was
not contacted and was not given an opportunity to present evidence  to  this
individual.  He was denied the right to have this inquiry  reviewed  by  the
Secretary of the Air Force.  He signed the contract in  May  1997  with  the
knowledge that  the  law  requires  that  both  signatories  adhere  to  its
contents.  If one party abrogates the contract, then the injured  party  may
sue for compensation.  He has made his prima facie case that the  Air  Force
abrogated  the  terms  of  this  contract.   Therefore,   this   contractual
agreement  is  invalid.   This  letter  serves  as  his   notice   to   seek
compensatory damages if his petition is denied.

He states that  the  Air  Force  and  its  representatives  have  grievously
wronged his entire family.  Although they can never be compensated  for  the
full extent of the damages they have suffered, the  Board  may  be  able  to
close this unpleasant chapter of their lives.

Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice   of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;  however,
we agree with the opinion and recommendations of the  Air  Force  and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend  granting
the relief sought in this application.

4.    The applicant's case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not  been
shown that a personal appearance with or  without  counsel  will  materially
add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore,  the  request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 8 June 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Oscar A. Goldfarb, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
                  Mr. E. David Hoard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Aug 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAMP, dated 22 Sep 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRSR, dated 6 Oct 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 26 Oct 98.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Oct 98.
   Exhibit G.  Inspector General Report - withdrawn.




                                OSCAR A. GOLDFARB
                                Panel Chair