RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 00-00881
INDEX CODE: 128.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKM be changed to a
code that would not require the recoupment of her Selective
Reenlistment Bonus (SRB). SPD code JKM is defined as “misconduct.”
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or
unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force
on 4 Feb 91. She was progressively promoted to the grade of senior
airman. On 12 Feb 94, she reenlisted for a period of 6 years and
received a Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB).
On 10 Jan 96, the applicant received a general discharge under the
provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct). She had completed a total of
4 years, 11 months and 7 days and was serving in the grade of airman
basic (E-1) at the time of discharge.
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by
the appropriate offices of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no
need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
EXAMINER’S NOTE: Regarding settlement of the applicant’s Do-It-
Yourself (DITY) move, the Special Actions Branch, Defense Finance and
Accounting Service - Denver Center (DFAS-DE), contacted the Air Force
Travel Branch and was informed that there is no record of settlement
of the travel advance. DFAS-DE stated that the debt was paid in full
on 17 Oct 00.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Traffic Management Division, HQ USAF/ILTT, stated that an advance
operating allowance of $747.00 provided to the applicant for her Do-It-
Yourself (DITY) move (completed on 10 Jan 96) was recouped because
there is no record of a settlement for the DITY move. In a series of
electronic mails, AF/ILTT determined the applicant had not completed
the travel voucher and provided her the mailing address and point of
contact at Grand Forks AFB Traffic Management Office who would work
her travel voucher. A memorandum of record confirmed that the
applicant received the mailing address and would complete and mail the
travel voucher to Grand Forks AFB. AF/ILTT recommended no change of
record concerning the DITY advance since it would be administratively
resolved at Grand Forks AFB. A complete copy of this response is
appended at Exhibit C.
The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, stated that on 19 Dec 95, the
applicant’s commander recommended she be involuntarily discharged for
misconduct, pattern of misconduct prejudicial to good order and
discipline. Her discharge package reveals a history of reporting for
appointments drunk, making false official statements, failing to go to
appointed place of duty and not keeping her government living quarters
clean. She received two Article 15 punishments and Letters of
Reprimand. The applicant was advised of her right to consult counsel
and to submit statements in her own behalf. She submitted a statement
in her own behalf, indicating she had an alcohol problem and
requesting an honorable discharge. The discharge authority reviewed
the case and approved the recommendation for discharge for misconduct
and directed that the applicant be given a general discharge. DPPRS
stated that the applicant did not submit any new evidence, identify
any errors in the discharge processing, nor provide facts that support
a change in her narrative reason for discharge or the separation code
that was given. Accordingly, DPPRS recommended the applicant’s
records remain unchanged and her request be denied (Exhibit D).
The Skills Management Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed this application
and recommended denial. DPPAE stated that the applicant’s DD Form 214
indicates that she still held the Air Traffic Control Specialty at the
time of her separation from active duty. DPPAE found no documentation
in her records to show that, prior to her separation, the unit
commander initiated Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) withdrawal action
due to medical reasons. DPPAE stated that the Law (USC, Title 37,
Section 308 d(1)) requires recoupment action for misconduct. Hence,
the applicant should not be allowed the benefits of an SRB entitlement
for service that was terminated early due to her own misconduct. A
complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on
28 July 2000 for review and response. As of this date, no response
has been received by this office (Exhibit F).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice with respect to the
applicant’s separation code. We have thoroughly reviewed the
circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge. The reasons
discharge proceedings were initiated against the applicant are well
documented in the evidence of record. Due to the applicant’s
misconduct, which was prejudicial to good order and discipline, the
commander, who is responsible for maintaining a quality force,
recommended the applicant be discharged. In view of the above and in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find that the applicant’s
separation code accurately reflects the circumstances of her
separation. Additionally, we noted that the applicant’s air traffic
control specialty was not withdrawn due to medical reasons. Hence, we
agree with the appropriate Air Force office (HQ AFPC/DPPAE) that the
SRB recoupment action for the unexpired portion of the applicant’s
additional obligated service is appropriate. We therefore conclude
that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on her
request that the SPD code be changed.
4. Notwithstanding the above, we do believe that the applicant has
been the victim of an injustice concerning the recoupment of her Do-It-
Yourself (DITY) move advance payment. While it appears that the
applicant was properly charged with a debt as a result of her DITY
move, we believe that remission of the debt is appropriate. In this
respect, we note that upon completion of her move in 1996, she
submitted and resubmitted the paperwork for settlement of the DITY
move. Apparently, due to circumstances beyond her control, the
required paperwork was not processed. Inasmuch as the applicant has
been trying since 1996 to resolve this matter to no avail, we believe
it would be unjust for her to continue to bear the cost of the move
when she had no control over the processing of her claim. In view of
the foregoing, we recommend that the applicant be reimbursed the
advanced payment for her DITY move. Accordingly, we recommend that
the records be corrected as indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that, on 8 January 1996,
she applied for a remission of her indebtedness, incurred due to her
Do-It-Yourself (DITY) move in connection with her separation from the
Air Force; and, on 9 January 1996, a remission of the debt in the
amount of $747.00, which is not subject to Federal Income Tax
Withholding, was approved by the Secretary of the Air Force pursuant
to Section 9837(d), Title 10, United States Code.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 17 October 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Feb 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ USAF/ILTT, dated 11 May 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 Jun 00.
Exhibit E. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 Jul 00.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 28 Jul 00.
BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 00-00881
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that, on 8 January
1996, she applied for a remission of her indebtedness, incurred due to
her Do-It-Yourself (DITY) move in connection with her separation from
the Air Force; and, on 9 January 1996, a remission of the debt in the
amount of $747.00, which is not subject to Federal Income Tax
Withholding, was approved by the Secretary of the Air Force pursuant
to Section 9837(d), Title 10, United States Code.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 98-02170 INDEX NUMBER: 128.02 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The weight ticket he obtained on 31 July 1998, be accepted in lieu of the certified weight ticket he lost after a Do-It-Yourself (DITY) move in 1992, so that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) can discontinue garnishing his...
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided a response which is attached at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02958
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02958 INDEX CODE: 128.10 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 28 JANUARY 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be relieved from her Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) debt. On 21 January 2005, she enlisted in the Air Force Reserve PALACE FRONT program for one year. DPPRS concludes the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 02715
The applicant completed a DD Form 2278, Application for Do-It-Yourself Move and Counseling Checklist, and was quoted an estimated incentive payment of $17,689.20 to personally procure his move. Based on that amount, the applicant was given an advance payment of $10,613.52. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit C).
f o r a 31TY move from The accessorial charge The appllcart is :--c+- -.ls - 7 i 37-,217 45 ILTT stated that after a thorough review of the records, they can find no evidence of miscounseling or an error on the part of the Thus, ILTT recommended the application be denied Government. After a t h o r o u g h review of the evidence of record and applicant s submission, we are unpersuaded that he should be reimbursed additional expenses for moving his sailboat. Diamond, Member Mr. Henry RGmG...
She indicated on her DD Form 1299, Application for Shipment and/or Storage of Personal Property, that her shipment would contain professional items. In support of her request applicant provided a memorandum from the Quality Assurance office; her excess cost rebuttal adjudication letter; DD Forms 139, Pay Adjustment Authorization; DD Form 1299; AF Form 767, Extended Active Duty Order; and, Notification of Indebtedness letter. ...
He received prior authorization to perform a Do-It- Yourself (DITY) move; he received proper DITY move counseling; he completed a DD form 2278, DITY Counseling Checklist, prior to the movement of his personal property in connection with his move to St. Louis, Missouri; and, his incentive was based on the rates in effect in June 1998. There is no statutory authority for a member to move personal property at govemment expense prior to receipt of orders unless the request for transportation is...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01577
ECAF states the JFTR requires that a members incentive be based upon 95 percent of the GCC, and at the time of the applicants shipment, the GCC was based upon the best value rates reflected in the DPS. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit C). Although it does appear the applicant was miscounseled regarding the amount of reimbursement he could expect to receive for a PPM, he was fully compensated for his move and in reality received a de facto incentive through remission...
IAW the Joint Federal Travel Regulation, Vol 1, par U5705B, “…a member is not entitled to TLE due to a move when entering active duty (except for enlisted members reporting to their first PDS).” The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Traffic Management Division, AFPC/DPAMP, evaluated the applicant’s request for remission of the debt for the unauthorized airline ticket. The Board does not agree with the recommendation made by AF/DPRCC to deny the applicant reimbursement for TLE. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02483
He would not have done a DITY move had he known the correct rate provided no incentive and resulted in extra costs. On 2 Apr 12, PPA HQ ECAF amended paragraph 6 of their original Air Force evaluation to read should the Board choose to provide the applicant the relief he is seeking, recommend the records be changed to reflect that under competent authority, the PPM was processed on 1 Apr 10 resulting in the utilization of low cost rates under the Transportation Operational Personal...