ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02095
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be relieved of the obligation to repay the unearned portion of the
Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) she received.
__________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 30 Aug 05, the AFBCMR considered and denied the requests from the
applicant as stated above (Exhibit F). In a new DD Form 149 (Exhibit G),
the applicant again requests she be relieved of the obligation to repay
her SRB. She states she has located an individual who can corroborate her
claim they were involuntarily discharged, but did not have to repay the
SRB they received. She has attached a memorandum prepared by this
individual.
__________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
Pursuant to the Board’s request, AFPC/DPPRS provided an information only
evaluation of the applicant’s request for reconsideration of her case.
They note the requirements for an individual to be eligible to receive
separation pay. A key requirement is that the member must not separate at
his/her own request.
AFPC/DPPRS also attaches a copy of the handout on the Air Force FY04 Force
Shaping Program, which the applicant separated under.
The complete advisory, with attachment, is at Exhibit H.
AFPC/JA also provided an evaluation of the applicant’s request for
reconsideration. They recommend the requested relief be denied. In
analyzing the applicant’s assertion she is the victim of an injustice they
note two essential considerations. First, the applicant signed
acknowledgement that she would be required to repay her reenlistment bonus
in return for seeking voluntary discharge. This refutes any claim she was
surprised or misled when collection efforts were initiated. Secondly, the
applicant’s contention that three other individuals who were involuntarily
separated under this program were not required to repay their bonuses is
immaterial to her situation. Of the three former airmen she names, she
provides information on only one. AFPC/JA notes that this individual fell
under the Date of Separation (DOS) Rollback Program. Contrary to the
applicant’s assertion in her initial application, this program does not
reward recalcitrant airmen as the applicant suggests. These airmen, as
well as some in other categories, received a Separation Program Designator
(SPD) code assigned by the Department of Defense, not the Air Force, that
did not require the recoupment of reenlistment bonuses because of the
involuntary nature of the separations directed under the DOS Rollback
Program.
The fundamental difference between the applicant’s case and the individual
she has provided a letter from is that she retained the option of
remaining in the Air Force and he did not. Achieving the Air Force’s
force shaping goals was not feasible solely through voluntary separations.
It thus became necessary to remove other enlisted members from active
duty by involuntary means. The DOS Rollback Program was one such process
employed to achieve that end. The philosophy behind excusing bonus
recoupment, and even providing separation pay in some cases, is that the
Air Force unilaterally rescinded their enlistment contracts long before
their previously agreed upon dates of separation.
AFPC/JA further notes that the applicant’s contention the individual she
has provided the supporting letter from was removed from active duty for
misconduct is simply not correct. That individual was not discharged
under the direction of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen,
Chapter 5, Section H. He and others qualifying for the DOS Rollback
Program were separated under AFI 36-3208, Para. 2.17. If this individual
had been administratively discharged under the process in Section H, he
would not have been excused from his reenlistment bonus debt.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit I.
__________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In her response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant reiterates her
views regarding the rules that require her to repay her bonus while
individuals with blemished service records do not.
The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit K.
__________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Insufficient relevant evidence has again not been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice. After reviewing the applicant’s
complete submission as well as her rebuttal to the new Air Force
evaluations, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the
basis for our determination the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief the
applicant is seeking. Therefore, it is our recommendation the applicant’s
request again be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
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 this application in
Executive Session on 7 June 2006, 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 additional documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. Record of Proceeding, w/atchs, dated 17 Aug 04.
Exhibit G. DD Form 149, dated 3 Mar 06, w/atch.
Exhibit H. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 Mar 06, w/atch.
Exhibit I. Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 31 Mar 06.
Exhibit J. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Apr 06.
Exhibit K. Letter, Applicant, dated 5 May 06.
B J WHITE-OLSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02095
_________________________________________________________________ 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. 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,...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00780
She did not receive any notice of the debt during the eight months after her separation from the Air Force. JA states the Air Force Shaping Program provided certain individuals with an opportunity to voluntarily opt out of their enlistments on the condition that they repay any bonuses received. 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01051
DPPRS’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant responded to the Air Force Advisory by explaining his options for early separation from the Air Force and how he arrived at his decision to separate early. The Board notes that airmen separating under the Palace Chase program incur a service commitment double that of their remaining active duty commitment. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01866
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01866 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 DECEMBER 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation code of "MND" and narrative reason for separating be changed so he can receive his Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits. The specific authority through which he...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02885
The applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, incorrectly reflects the applicant’s separation code and narrative reason as “MBK” and “completion of required active service.” The separation code should reflect “MND” and a narrative reason of “Miscellaneous/General Reasons.” HQ AFPC/DPSOS’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSOA reviewed the application and recommends denial, stating, in part, that on 15 Jun 05, the applicant...
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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-00676
Air Force Instruction 36-3202, Separation Documents, 20 May 94, states that item 11 of the DD Form 214 will reflect the primary AFSC code (PAFSC) and all additional AFSCs in which the member served for one year or more, during member’s continuous active military service, and for each AFSC, the title with years and months of service. The Separation Program Designation (SPD) code issued in conjunction with his 18 June 2004 release from active duty is correct; however, a majority of the Board...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00647 INDEX CODE: 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her separation code be changed. The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant was administratively separated due to an adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, and traits of a personality disorder. On...
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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-01763
Separations from the Air Force based on those reasons would be detailed on the DD Form 214 as reasons for separation, and for ex-service-members who did not complete their first full term of service, a “Miscellaneous” separation generally would not serve as an exception for qualifying for UCX. Had she realized the importance of the narrative reason for discharge, she would have filed for early separation with her main reason, that being education. In order to provide the relief she seeks,...