RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01234
            INDEX NUMBER: 100.00

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Separation Program Designator  (SPD)  be  changed  and  he  receive  all
monies owed as a result of the new SPD.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received an incorrect SPD based on an  erroneous  assignment  declination
statement.

Upon receipt of a join  spouse  assignment,  he  and  his  spouse  completed
assignment declination statements.  His spouse was  advised  by  a  Military
Personnel Flight  (MPF)  representative  that  he  would  destroy  his  [the
applicant’s]  declination  statement  because  his  functional  manager  was
removing his assignment from the computer.  Since the assignment was  driven
by his spouse’s command  leveling  and  she  declined  the  assignment,  his
declination statement was unnecessary.  He  was  later  approved  for  early
separation and was advised that he would be entitled to separation  pay  and
that his Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) would  be  recouped  on  a  pro-
rated basis.  However, based on the SPD he  received  upon  separation,  his
pay was reduced by over $900.00.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his enlistment in the Air Force  on  1 March  1995,
for a period of four years.  On 4 February and 20 May 1999, he extended  the
enlistment for a total period of  six  months  to  complete  the  Air  Force
Weight Management Program (WMP).  He contracted  his  last  reenlistment  in
the Air Force on 16 July 1999, for a period of four years, with  entitlement
to a Zone A, Multiple 1, Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB).



He was honorably discharged on 30 December 2002,  under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-3208, Miscellaneous/General Reasons, and issued  an  SPD  of  “KND  -
Miscellaneous/General Reasons.”  His DD  Form  214,  issued  in  conjunction
with his discharge, indicates that he was issued an RE code of “3D - Second-
term or career airman who refused to get PCS or TDY assignment”; however,  a
DD Form 215 has been prepared to correctly reflect that he was issued an  RE
code of “1J - Eligible to reenlist, but  elects  separation.”   He  received
separation payment of $161.51 on  8 January  2003  and  $824.86  on  4 April
2003.  His SRB was recouped in the amount of $773.83.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states,  in  part,  that
the  discharge  was  consistent  with   the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation and within the  discretion  of  the
discharge authority.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE found no documentation to  support  the  RE  code  of  “3D,”  and
states  the  RE  code  of  “1J”  is  the  appropriate  code.   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.  No change to the SPD code is warranted and  would  not  affect  the
recoupment of the bonus monies he received.  In addition,  he  received  the
appropriate amount of separation pay and has a valid tuition debt.

The DFAS-POCC/DE evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 9 January  2004,  for  review  and  response  within  30  days.
However, as of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  After a thorough review  of  the  evidence
of record and applicant’s submission,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  relief
should be granted.  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 duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions,  in  and
by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override  the  rationale  provided
by the Air Force.  The offices of  primary  responsibility  have  adequately
addressed applicant’s contentions and  we  agree  with  their  opinions  and
adopt the rationale expressed  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has  suffered  either  an
error or injustice.   Hence,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of 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  Docket  Number  BC-2003-01234
in Executive Session on 19 February 2004, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
                       Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jan 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Apr 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 6 Nov 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, DFAS-POCC/DE, dated 17 Dec 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jan 04.




                                   VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                                   Panel Chair