RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02194
            INDEX CODE:  128.10
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 Jan 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her separation program designator (SPD) code be changed to a code that  does
not require recoupment of her indebtedness;  or,  her  indebtedness  to  the
government be remitted.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She requested a waiver/remission of her  indebtedness  prior  to  separation
from the Air Force but was told the debt had not been established.   At  the
time of her separation she had been disqualified from  Air  Traffic  Control
duties and had been continued on active duty awaiting  waivers  and  Medical
Evaluation Board (MEB) processing.   She  separated  for  hardship  reasons.
She has since received a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating  for  a
disability that is disqualifying for military service.

In support or her request, applicant provided documentation associated  with
her  request  for  hardship  separation,  documents  associated   with   the
establishment  of  her  debt,  a  copy  of  her  divorce  decree,  documents
extracted from her medical records, her DVA rating decision, and an  excerpt
from AFI 48-123.  Her complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  28
Jan 98.  She was progressively promoted  to  the  grade  of  senior  airman,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of  28  Jan  01.
On 31 Jan 01, she reenlisted for a period of six years and was authorized  a
Zone A, selective reenlistment bonus (SRB),  multiple  5.0,  based  on  five
years of continued service ($37,514.99).

On 19 Jun 02, applicant requested voluntary separation under the  provisions
of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 3.17, Pregnancy or Childbirth.   Her  request  was
approved and she was released from active duty on 13 Nov 02.  She  served  4
years, 9 months, and 14 days on active duty.  Subsequent to  her  separation
a debt in the amount of  $16,610  was  established  for  recoupment  of  the
unearned portion of her SRB.  Deductions from her  pay  and  allowances  for
the pay period 1-13 Nov 02 reduced her debt to  $14,785.74.   An  additional
overpayment of $1,130 was paid to her on 15  Nov  02,  which  increased  her
debt to $15,915.74.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states  the  applicant  understood  and
agreed to the conditions concerning her SRB.  She understood  there  was  no
actual debt until her final separation from the Air Force and she  would  be
indebted for the unearned portion of her SRB if she  separated  early.   She
contends she was affected by Stop Loss and she submitted an application  for
hardship discharge;  however,  there  is  no  documentation  in  her  master
personnel records documenting these actions.   She  has  provided  no  facts
justifying a waiver  of  the  indebtedness.   The  DPPRS  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit C.

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states after approval of her voluntary pregnancy separation, she  apparently
attempted to change her separation to a hardship  separation,  a  separation
type that is considered involuntary for purposes of  recoupment.   There  is
no indication her request for hardship discharge was considered  or  denied.


She contends her medical  conditions  diagnosed  following  a  January  2002
panic attack were disqualifying for air traffic controller duties  and  were
the subject of a pending MEB.  Her diagnosis of extra heart beats and  sinus
tachycardia, with a structurally normal heart are benign conditions  and  do
not reflect a risk for the development of serious  heart  problems  and  are
not disqualifying  for  continued  military  service  or  for  ground  based
controller duty without a medical waiver.  Her diagnoses of  panic  disorder
and somatization disorder were  disqualifying  for  air  traffic  controller
duty  without  a  medical  waiver  but  these  diagnoses   alone   are   not
disqualifying  for  continued  military  service.   There  is  normally   no
requirement for an MEB since evidence  of  the  record  indicates  a  single
episode in January 2002 without recurrence and no need  of  hospitalization,
chronic medication or ongoing psychotherapy.  Although her  conditions  were
not disqualifying for continued general military service, it  is  not  known
if a waiver would have been granted for return to controller  duty.   It  is
possible  such  a  waiver  would  have  been  granted  had  evaluation  been
performed resulting in a strong recommendation for a  waiver.   Her  request
and approval of pregnancy  separation  rendered  the  waiver  process  moot.
Evidence of record indicates that one  of  the  major  reasons  she  desired
separation was  to  avoid  deployment  and  separation  from  her  children.
Obtaining a  medical  waiver  would  have  prevented  her  vulnerability  to
deployment.  She has been hired as an air traffic controller  following  her
separation; however this is not determinative of what may have  happened  if
she had not voluntarily separated and continued the waiver  process.   If  a
waiver for  return  to  controller  duties  had  been  denied  and  she  was
permanently disqualified  for  controller  duties,  evaluation  through  the
disability evaluation system would have  resulted  in  one  of  two  equally
likely outcomes: a recommendation for return to  duty  with  cross-training,
or discharge with severance pay (likely a zero  percent  rating  similar  to
her DVA rating) if cross-training opportunities were  not  available.   With
regard  to  the  presence  of  medical  conditions  that  were   potentially
disqualifying for controller duties, the Medical Consultant states the  fact
that she decided to voluntarily separate under pregnancy  provisions  rather
than remain on active duty and complete the planned evaluations  and  waiver
processes  does  not  establish  an  error  or  injustice  due  to  lack  of
completion of those processes.  The  Medical  Consultant  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit D.

DFAS-POCC/DE recommends denial.  DFAS  states  she  requested  a  waiver  of
$15,915.74 on 5 Aug 03.  The Waivers  and  Remissions  Branch  informed  her
that  $14,785.74  was  statutorily  barred   leaving   $1,130   for   waiver
consideration, which was denied. On 22 Jun 04, the  Waivers  and  Remissions
Branch applied to the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)  on  her
behalf.  DOHA sustained the decision that waiver of  $1,130  is  denied  and
the amount of $14,785-74 is not  eligible  for  waiver  consideration.   The
DFAS evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant provided a response to the Air Force evaluations  reiterating  her
previous  contentions   and   detailing   her   financial   and   dependency
difficulties.  Her complete submission, with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  After a  review  of  the  documentation
provided, we are not persuaded  that  relief  of  her  indebtedness  to  the
government is warranted.  We took careful note of  her  complete  submission
in judging the merits of this case; however, we agree with the opinions  and
recommendations of the Air  Force  offices  of  primary  responsibility  and
adopt their rationale as the basis for our  conclusion  that  the  applicant
has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  While we are  sympathetic
towards her unfortunate financial situation, we feel compelled to note  that
we are not chartered to favorably consider requests  on  that  basis  alone.
An error or clear  injustice  must  exist  which  would  warrant  corrective
action.  After  a  thorough  review  of  her  complete  submission  and  the
available evidence of record, we find no evidence of an error in this  case,
and we are not persuaded by her contentions that she has been the victim  of
an injustice.  Her separation  processing  appears  to  have  been  properly
conducted and her indebtedness for the unearned  portion  of  her  Selective
Reenlistment  Bonus  appears  to  have   been   appropriately   established.
Accordingly, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we  find
no compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2005-
02194 in Executive Session on 13 Oct 05, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 May 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Available Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Oct 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 26 Jul 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, DFAS-POCC/DE, dated 28 Aug 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Sep 05.
    Exhibit G.  Letter Applicant, dated 4 Oct 05, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair