RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02735
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 FEB 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His   narrative   reason    for    separation    be    changed    from
miscellaneous/general reasons to reduction in force and his records be
corrected to reflect  his  eligibility  for  the  Montgomery  GI  Bill
(MGIB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes the narrative reason for separation is inaccurate  and  he
was miscounseled and informed he would still be eligible for the  MGIB
after his discharge.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of his DD Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s master personnel records were  reconstructed,  because
his original records were lost.   His  available  records  reflect  he
enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman  basic  on  28  January
2003 for a term of 4 years.

On 15 December 2004, he submitted a request for separation  under  the
Limited  Active  Duty  Service  Commitment  (LADSC)  Waiver   Program.
Applicant was released from active duty on 28 January 2005, under  the
provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,  Administrative  Separation  of   Airmen
(miscellaneous/general  reasons)  with  an  honorable  discharge.   He
served two years and one day on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.   DPPRS  states  according  to  Military
Personnel Flight  memorandum  (MPFM)  04-35,  the  separation  program
designator for individuals being released from active duty  under  the
LADSC  Program  will  be  “MND”  and  the  narrative  reason  will  be
“miscellaneous/general reasons”.

DPPRS states based on the documentation on file in  the  records,  the
separation  was  consistent  with  the  procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.  The  discharge  was  within
the discretion of the  discharge  authority,  the  applicant  did  not
submit any new evidence or identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that
occurred  in  the  discharge  processing,  the  narrative  reason  for
separation is correct and no corrective action is required.

The DPPRS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that he does not have  copies  of  his  personnel
records and his records can’t be found by the Air  Force.   He  states
the advisory opinion recommending  denial  is  based  on  an  unsigned
document and he believes that his separation was a reduction in force,
not miscellaneous/general reasons.  He was informed at his  separation
briefing he had served enough time to qualify for  the  Montgomery  GI
Bill and he  does  not  remember  signing  documents  forfeiting  that
privilege.  Applicant submitted additional documentation  through  his
Congressman stating he was never counseled that the type of  discharge
would render him ineligible for the MGIB  and  no  records  have  been
located to show he was counseled and requests the Boards consideration
of these facts.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit E.

In further support of his appeal,  he  provided  a  letter,  dated  26
December 2005, through his Congressman’s office, which is  at  Exhibit
F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Board notes, during the time
of his separation, individuals released from  active  duty  under  the
LADSC program were given the narrative  reason  “miscellaneous/general
reasons”  as  indicated   correctly   by   the   office   of   primary
responsibility (OPR).  In regard to the applicant’s contention that he
was miscounseled on the MGIB, we note that at the applicant’s request,
he was voluntarily released from active duty under  the  LADSC  Waiver
Program.  The  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  is  the  sole
authority to determine MGIB eligibility and award  benefits  based  on
public law.  Since the applicant had a 48-month commitment and did not
serve the minimum 30 months of continuous active duty service, he does
not qualify for MGIB benefits.  The applicant contends he was told  on
numerous occasions that he would not lose his MGIB eligibility  if  he
separated early; however, he has not provided evidence to support this
contention.   We  note  that  LADSC  Waiver  Program  applicants  were
provided concise  written  guidance  for  MGIB  eligibility  prior  to
applying  for  early  separation  under  the  LADSC  Waiver   Program.
Further, Military Personnel Flights required members to sign  detailed
statements of understanding prior to voluntarily separating them under
the Fiscal Year  2004  (FY04)  Force  Shaping  Program,  that  clearly
stated,  “I  understand  that  if  I  am  currently  enrolled  in  the
Montgomery GI Bill and separate under the LADSC Waiver Program, PALACE
Chase Program, or for miscellaneous reasons I must serve at  least  30
months of a three  year  commitment,  or  at  least  20  months  of  a
commitment  less  than  3  years  to  be  eligible  for   the   MGIB.”
Unfortunately, applicant’s personnel records were lost  in  transition
between Shaw AFB (his duty station at the time  of  his  release  from
active duty) and the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC).  As such, we
are unable to obtain a copy of the statement of understanding he would
have signed prior to his separation.  However, there is a  presumption
of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs, which he has not
overcome.  In view of this, and since  he  provides  no  corroborative
evidence  to  substantiate  that  he  was  miscounseled,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINED 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-
02735 in Executive Session on 19 September 2006, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Kathleen M. Graham, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Elwood C. Lewis., Member
                 Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Aug 05, w/atch.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Reconstructed Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Sep 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Sep 05.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Oct 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit F. Facsimile Transmittal Sheet, dated 15 Dec 05, w/atchs





      KATHLEEN M. GRAHAM
      Panel Chair