RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02095
            INDEX NUMBER:  128.05
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  Yes


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  29 Dec 06


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be relieved of the obligation to repay the unearned portion of the
Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) she received.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She previously filed a  complaint  with  the  Inspector  General  (IG)
office at her base of assignment when she separated from the Air Force
regarding the requirements for repayment of SRBs and has not  received
a response.  Previously she had used her chain of  command.   She  has
become enraged about the lack of interest in her case.

Instead of getting an answer to  her  question,  she  gets  Air  Force
Instructions (AFIs) thrown in her face.  She is fully aware of the AFI
governing the “Air Force Reshaping venture.”  However,  the  AFI  does
not state why individuals that are being kicked out for misbehavior do
not have to repay their bonuses and why they are  receiving  severance
pay.  This has always been her question.  In  her  IG  complaint,  she
listed the names of three individuals that were  discharged  from  the
Air Force for misbehavior and  able  to  retain  their  bonus,  annual
payment, and receive severance pay.

If the Air Force provides a program for airmen to  separate  on  their
own will, the program should be fair to all individuals.  Currently it
is not.  She believes  her  bonus  recoupment  should  be  turned  off
because she served her country under the guidelines that the Air Force
provided and should not be treated less than an individual that  chose
to serve otherwise.

In support of her  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  a  copy  of  the
paperwork related to her IG complaint.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 16 Apr 98.   The
applicant reenlisted on 6 Nov 03 for four years with entitlement to  a
Zone A, Multiple 5 bonus based on four  years  of  continued  service.
She had previously signed AF Form 901 on     3 Nov  05  certifying  in
Section D that she understood and agreed to the conditions which might
(1) terminate her continued entitlement to unpaid  bonus  installments
and (2) cause a portion of advance bonus payments to  be  recouped  or
terminated.  On     21 Jun 04, the applicant  applied  for  separation
under the FY04 Force Reshaping Program (Phase II).  The applicant also
signed a statement of understanding on 21  Jun  04,  which  stated  in
paragraph 6 “I understand that  if  I  retire  or  separate  prior  to
completing the period of active duty I agreed to serve  for  receiving
education assistance, special pay or bonus money, I will reimburse the
Air Force a percentage  of  the  cost  involved  unless  specified  in
this….”  On 22 Jun 04, the unit  commander  approved  the  applicant’s
request.  The applicant was released from active duty on 3 Mar 05 with
a “1J” Reenlistment  Eligibility  code,  “Eligible  to  reenlist,  but
elects  separation,”  and  given   a   separation   code   of   “MND,”
“Miscellaneous/General Reasons.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s   request.    The
applicant voluntarily applied and was approved  for  separation  under
the date of separation (DOS) rollback program.  She has  a  separation
code (SPD) of “MND,” which determined that her bonus must be recouped.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s   request.    The
applicant did not submit  any  evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the separation processing.   She  provided
no facts warranting a change to her separation code to  eliminate  the
recoupment action.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
29 Jul 05 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a  response
has not 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.  The applicant has expressed her
dissatisfaction with the Air Force separation policy as  it  pertains
to  recoupment  of  an  unearned  bonus  and  believes  that  it   is
inequitable and unjust.  Although the evidence indicates  the  policy
was properly applied in her case, it appears she believes a class  of
Air  Force  personnel,  i.e.,  those  involuntarily   separated   for
misconduct, are accorded privileges she was not.   Specifically,  the
applicant believes the policy requiring  her  to  repay  her  SRB  is
defective  because  individuals  similarly  situated  to   her,   who
voluntarily elect to separate, are not treated equal to those who are
forced to involuntarily leave the  Air  Force.   In  support  of  her
argument, the applicant notes that she  filed  an  IG  complaint  and
identified three individuals involuntarily  separated  from  the  Air
Force for misconduct who were not required to repay  the  balance  of
their unearned SRB and in some cases received severance pay.  We note
that the Secretary of the  Air  Force  is  empowered  by  statute  to
promulgate rules and regulations to govern the Air  Force.   And,  as
long as those rules and regulations are equitably applied and are not
arbitrary or capricious, there is no basis to conclude the  applicant
is the victim of either an error or an injustice.  We believe this to
be the circumstance in the applicant’s case.  We note the applicant’s
assertion that the governing AFI does not state why individuals  that
are being kicked out for misbehavior  do  not  have  to  repay  their
bonuses and why they are receiving  severance  pay.   However,  other
than the assertion that she provided Air Force officials the names of
specific  individuals  that,  in  her  opinion,  received  undeserved
benefits, she has not provided those names in her application.   Here
we must reiterate that this  Board  is  not  an  investigative  body,
although we did request and received a copy of IG documents generated
in her case.  The documents, however, did not include the names.   We
are  also  aware  that  Air  Force  personnel  may  be  involuntarily
discharged for various reasons.  For us to come to a conclusion  that
the applicant has suffered an injustice, we would have to examine the
specific cases she is  aware  of.   In  the  absence  of  substantial
evidence of a showing of  impropriety,  we  presume  that  Air  Force
officials have acted properly.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence
to the contrary, we conclude the applicant has failed to sustain  her
burden of establishing the existence of either an error or  injustice
warranting favorable action on her request.

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   issues   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 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-2005-
02095 in Executive Session on 30 August 2005, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. B J White-Olson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
      Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jun 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 19 Jul 05.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Jul 05,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Jul 05.




                                   B J WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair