RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02036
INDEX CODE: 112.00,128.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.
2. He be reimbursed $1,755.72 for his Selective Enlistment Bonus
(SEB).
_________________________________________________________________
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:
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.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial. They indicate that the applicant’s RE
code of 2C, Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or
entry level separation without characterization of service is correct.
Although his character of service was changed from under honorable
conditions to honorable and his separation code changed from JKM
(Misconduct) to JFF, Secretarial Authority, by the AFBCMR (SIC) {the
Air Force Discharge Review Board - AFDRB made this correction},
recoupment of his unearned portion of his SRB is still required based
on the separation code.
The evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 2 November 2001 a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to
the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days. As of
this date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:
DFAS-POCC/DE recommended denial. They indicate that the applicant
separated with a debt owed the Government due to recoupment of his
Selective Enlistment Bonus (SEB). The amount of the debt after final
adjustments were made totaled $1,444.79. The amount was established
on the Defense Debt Management System. The IRS offset $641.92 from
income tax return and the payment was credited on 29 March 2001. A
second payment was received from a collection agency in the amount of
$874.64 and was credited on 14 May 2001. The entire debt of $1,444.79
plus $71.77 in interest, penalty, and administrative charges was
collected. The fact that the discharge was upgraded to honorable and
the separation code was changed to JFF has no effect on the
collection.
The evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:
On 26 December 2001 a copy of the DFAS evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days. 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice warranting partial
relief. The RE code issued at the time of separation was apparently
in accordance with the applicable regulations. However, a majority of
the Board finds that based on the Air Force Discharge Review Board’s
(AFDRB) decision to upgrade the applicant’s character of service to
honorable and to change his separation program designator (SPD) code
to JFF, his RE code should be changed. The AFDRB concluded that the
applicant’s discharge was inconsistent with actions administered to
other members who committed similar offenses. Also, the Board notes
the applicant’s desire to enlist in the Reserves; and a majority of
the Board believes he should be afforded the opportunity to apply for
a waiver to enlist in the armed services. Whether or not he is
successful will depend on the needs of the service and our
recommendation in no way guarantees that he will be allowed to return
to the Air Force or any branch of the service. Therefore, the
majority of the Board recommends his RE code be changed to “3K.”
4. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice warranting reimbursement
for his Selective Enlistment Bonus (SEB). We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation from the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) and adopt their rationale as the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of
an error or injustice. The applicant separated from the Air Force
before serving the required amount of time to be entitled to the
bonus. While we note the applicant’s separation code and narrative
reason for separation were changed by the AFDRB, we find insufficient
evidence which would persuade us to change his separation code to one
not requiring recoupment. We find no basis upon which to pay him for
unserved time. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend
granting this portion sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that at the time of his
discharge on 22 June 2000, he was issued a Reenlistment Eligibility
(RE) code of “3K.”
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 01-
02036 in Executive Session on 14 February 2002 under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, Panel Chair
Ms. Nancy Wells Drury, Member
Mr. Albert J. Starnes, Member
By a majority vote, the Board voted to correct the records, as
recommended. Mr. Willmeth voted to deny the application and does not
desire to submit a minority report. The following documentary
evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 May 2001, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 18 October 2001.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 November 2001.
Exhibit E. Letter, DFAS-POCC/DE, dated 14 December 2001
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 December 2001.
ROGER E. WILLMETH
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 01-02036
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, be corrected to show that at the time of his
discharge on 22 June 2000, he was issued a Reenlistment Eligibility
(RE) code of “3K.”
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00227
In support of his request, the applicant provided documents extracted from his military personnel records Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. On 20 May 2004 the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and approved the applicant’s request that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and his RE code be changed. On 12 July 2006, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the counsel for review and response within 30...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03541
DFAS-POCC/DE states the applicant was discharged with an SPD code of MND. The applicant asserts that he was told by his officers that he would not have to repay his SEB when he voluntarily submitted a request for separation under the LADSC Waiver Program. JAMES W. RUSSELL III Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-03541 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,...
The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder, and not the personality disorder that appears on the DD Form 214 an error that needs to be corrected. The BCMR Medical Consultant further states that the current AFI regulating separations for mental health problems does not allow coding for other than “personality disorder,” an entirely different code sequence from that with which the applicant was diagnosed. However, after reviewing all the...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00208
In support of his application, he provided a personal statement and a copy of his separation documentation. The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C. DFAS-POCC/DE indicated that based on circumstances of the applicant’s discharge, an enlistment bonus recoupent of $10,147.23 was required. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 13 November 2002, under the provisions of AFI...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01234
However, the recoupment of bonus monies is driven by the assigned SPD code. The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. DFAS-POCC/DE recommends the applicant’s request to change his SPD code be denied. The applicant originally requested his RE code also be changed; however, AFPC/DPPRSP has administratively corrected his records to reflect he was issued RE code “1J.” Applicant’s contentions regarding the separation program designator (SPD) he was assigned at the time of his discharge are...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2001-00580A
The applicant’s complete review is at Exhibit K. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL HQ USAF/JAA EVALUATION: HQ USAF/JAA reiterates that the applicant’s original debt of $50,669.90 was reduced to $25,669.90 and, to the extent that his reconsideration request was for the repayment of this validly established debt owed to the US, it should be denied. DFAS summarizes the applicant’s indebtedness and adjustments thereto as follows: $50,669.90 Original...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00784
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPR recommended denial indicating the Separations Section of the applicant’s Military Personnel Flight (MPF) was contacted and the noncommissioned officer (NCO) who processed the applicant’s separation application stated the applicant was briefed on the Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05) Force Shaping Limited Active Duty Service Commitment Program and the possibility of recoupment. After a thorough review of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00785
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPR recommended denial indicating the Separations Section of the applicant’s Military Personnel Flight (MPF) was contacted and the noncommissioned officer (NCO) who processed the applicant’s separation application stated the applicant was briefed on the Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05) Force Shaping Limited Active Duty Service Commitment Program and the possibility of recoupment. After a thorough review of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2001-00295
The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, General Law Division, HQ USAF/JAG, noted that Section 2005 provides for recoupment if a member fails to complete the ADSC voluntarily or due to misconduct. On 14 Aug 01, DFAS-POCC/DE advised the applicant that, based on her placement on the TDRL, it was inappropriate at this time to recoup monies which might not be owed if...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01971
He transferred into Palace chase and is performing the exact Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) that he performed for more than six years while on active duty. He served 3 years, 6 months and 27 days in the regular Air Force. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the applicant should be given the relief requested.