RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01504
                                             INDEX CODE:  100

      XXXXXXXXX                         COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXXXX                         HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  9 Nov 2006


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Separation Program Designation (SPD) code  issued  in  conjunction  with
her 1 October 2004 release  from  active  duty  be  changed  to  remove  her
indebtedness.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Prior to her separation, she was misinformed that she  had  no  indebtedness
to the government.  However, after her separation,  she  was  notified  that
she incurred an indebtedness because  she  did  not  complete  the  term  of
obligated service for which her initial enlistment bonus was paid.  Had  she
known that she would have  to  pay  back  the  bonus,  she  would  not  have
separated from active duty.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  23
May 2001, for a  period  of  six  years,  and  received  a  $12,000  initial
enlistment bonus.  On 23 July 2004,  applicant  requested  early  separation
effective 1 October 2004, due to pregnancy.  Her request  was  approved  and
on 1 October 2004, she was released from active duty and transferred to  the
Air Force  Reserve  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208  (pregnancy  or
childbirth), with SPD code “MDF.”  She served 3 years, 4 months, and 8  days
of active duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states,  in  part,  that
applicant acknowledged that she understood that should she not complete  the
term of obligated service for which the bonus was paid, or  should  she  not
maintain qualification  in  the  bonus  Air  Force  specialty,  she  may  be
required to repay the  unearned  portion  of  the  bonus.   She  voluntarily
applied for separation and the narrative reason for her separation  and  SPD
code are correct.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

DFAS-POCC/DE recommends the application be  denied,  and  states,  in  part,
that there has  been  no  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant  signed  an
enlistment agreement acknowledging that she may be  required  to  repay  the
unearned portion of the  bonus  she  received  if  she  separated  prior  to
completing the term of obligated service.

The DFAS-POCC/DE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete copies of the evaluations were forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  8
July 2005, for review and response within 30  days.   However,  as  of  this
date, no response has been received.

________________________________________________________________

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 thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence
of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, a majority  of  the  Board
is not persuaded the requested relief should be favorably  considered.   The
applicant enlisted for a period of six years and received a $12,000  initial
enlistment bonus.  She signed an  enlistment  agreement  acknowledging  that
she may be required to repay the unearned portion of the  bonus  should  she
not complete the term of obligated service for which  the  bonus  was  paid.
After  completing  only  3  years  and  2  months  of  her  6-year  term  of
enlistment, she voluntarily  requested  to  be  released  from  active  duty
effective 1 October 2004 due to pregnancy.  Her  request  was  approved  and
she incurred an indebtedness for the unearned portion  of  the  bonus.   The
applicant contends that at the time she  applied  for  separation,  she  was
erroneously advised by Finance that she would have no  indebtedness  to  the
government  and  provides  a  statement  from  a  Finance  Customer  Service
representative in support  of  this  contention.   The  statement  from  the
Finance Customer Service representative is duly noted; however,  a  majority
of the Board does not find it sufficient to  establish  that  the  SPD  code
issued in conjunction with her 1 October 2004  release  from  active  is  in
error or unjust.  To the contrary, a majority of the  Board  finds  the  SPD
she was issued accurately identifies her voluntary release from active  duty
for pregnancy.  In addition, in view of  the  circumstances  of  this  case,
i.e., she was pregnant with obligated service through 2007,  a  majority  of
the Board is not convinced that she  would  not  have  requested  separation
from active duty, had she known she would incur an  indebtedness.   Further,
after careful review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  the  documentation
submitted in support of  this  appeal,  a  majority  of  the  Board  is  not
persuaded that the  applicant  should  be  relieved  of  the  debt  for  the
unearned portion of the initial enlistment bonus she  received.   Therefore,
in the absence of evidence that the SPD is in error or  unjust,  a  majority
of the Board finds no compelling basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief
sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of  error  or  injustice
and recommends the application be denied.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2005-01504
in Executive Session on 11 August 2005, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
                 Ms. Sue A. Lumpkins, Member
                 Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member

By majority vote, the Board recommended  denial  of  the  application.   Mr.
Parker voted to correct the records but does not wish to submit  a  minority
report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Apr 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 May 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, DFAS-POCC/DE, dated 5 Jul 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Jul 05.




                                   MARILYN M. THOMAS
                                   Panel Chair
AFBCMR
1535 Command Dr, EE Wing, 3rd Flr
Andrews AFB, MD 20762-7002


XXXXX

Dear XXXX

      Your application to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military
Records, AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-01504, has been finalized.

      By a majority vote, the Board recommended that your application be
denied as set forth in the attached Record of Proceedings.  However, after
a careful review and consideration of all factors involved, the Director,
Air Force Review Boards Agency accepted the recommendation of the minority
member and determined the military records should be corrected as set forth
in the attached copy of a Memorandum for the Chief of Staff, United States
Air Force.  The office responsible for making the corrections will inform
you when your records have been changed.

      After correction, the records will be reviewed to determine if you
are entitled to any monetary benefits as a result of the correction of
records.  This determination is made by the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service (DFAS-DE), Denver, Colorado, and involves the assembly and careful
checking of finance records.  It may also be necessary for the DFAS-DE to
communicate directly with you to obtain additional information to ensure
the proper settlement of your claim.   Because of the number and complexity
of claims workload, you should expect some delay.  We assure you, however,
that every effort will be made to conclude this matter at the earliest
practical date.

                                        Sincerely




                 ROSE M. KIRKPATRICK
                 Chief Examiner
                 Air Force Board for Correction
                 of Military Records


Attachments:
1.  Cy of Directive, w/Cy of Proceedings
2.  SAF/MRB Letter
3.  Survey

cc:  DFAS-DE







AFBCMR BC-2005-01504




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 XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that on 30 September 2004, she
applied for remission of the debt arising from the unearned portion of the
initial enlistment bonus she received in conjunction with her 23 May 2001
enlistment, and her request was approved by competent authority.







                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency


MEMORANDUM FOR   THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
                 CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT: XXXXXXXXX, BC-2005-01504

      I have carefully considered all the circumstances of this case and do
not agree with the majority members that the applicant should not be
relieved of the debt for the unearned portion of the initial enlistment
bonus she received.

      At the time of her six-year enlistment, the applicant received a
$12,000 initial enlistment bonus and signed an enlistment agreement
acknowledging that she may be required to repay the unearned portion of the
bonus should she not complete the term of obligated service for which the
bonus was paid.

      In support of her request, the applicant submits a statement from a
Finance Customer Service representative indicating that at the time she
applied for early separation, she was erroneously advised that she would
have no indebtedness to the government.  The applicant contends that had
she known she would incur indebtedness by separating early, she would not
have separated from active duty.

      Although the Separation Program Designation (SPD) code issued in
conjunction with her 1 October 2004 release from active duty is correct, in
view of the corroborative evidence of miscounseling from responsible Air
Force personnel, I believe she has been the victim of an injustice.
Therefore, I direct her records be corrected to show that prior to her
separation, she requested remittance of the debt arising from the unearned
portion of the initial enlistment bonus she received in conjunction with
her 23 May 2001 enlistment, and her request was approved by competent
authority.







                                                                        JOE
G. LINEBERGER

Director
                                                                        Air
Force Review Boards Agency