RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00227
            INDEX CODE:  100.00, 112.00
            COUNSEL:  IVORY J. DORSEY
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 JUL 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  He be enrolled in the Montgomery GI Bill.

2.  He be released from repaying his enlistment bonus.

3.  His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His  discharge  was  misinterpreted.   Medical  records  along  with   other
documentation states he should have been able to complete the  term  of  his
enlistment.

In support of his request, the applicant provided documents  extracted  from
his military personnel records

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air Force on  17  May  2000  in
the grade of airman basic.  He was progressively promoted to  the  grade  of
airman first class having assumed that grade effective and with  a  date  of
rank of 14 July 2000.  On 17 October 2002, applicant  was  notified  by  his
commander that he was recommending he  be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force
under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, chapter  5,  section  E,
paragraph 5.26.1.   The  specific  reasons  for  this  action  included  two
Letters of Reprimands (LORs) for failure to  report  to  work  on  time  and
failure  to  comply  with  an  order.   He  also  received  two  Letters  of
Counseling (LOCs) for providing his first sergeant with  misinformation  and
his failure to report to work on time.  He was  advised  of  his  rights  in
this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification on that same  date.
 After consulting with counsel the applicant  submitted  statements  on  his
own behalf.  In a legal review of the case file, the  staff  judge  advocate
found the case legally sufficient and recommended  that  he  be  discharged.
On  5  November  2002,  the   discharge   authority   concurred   with   the
recommendations and directed that he be discharged  with  a  general  (under
honorable  conditions)  discharge,  without  probation  and  rehabilitation.
Applicant was discharged on 5 November 2002.  He served 2  years,  5  months
and 18 days on active duty.  He received an RE code of 2B –  separated  with
a general or under-other-than-honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge and  an
SPD code of JHJ – unsatisfactory performance.

On 20 May 2004 the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB)  considered  and
approved the applicant’s request that his general discharge be  upgraded  to
an honorable discharge and his RE code  be  changed.   AFDRB  concluded  the
discharge was consistent with the procedural  and  substantive  requirements
of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of  the  discharge
authority and that  the  applicant  was  provided  full  administrative  due
process.  However, his  overall  quality  of  service  was  more  accurately
reflected by an honorable characterization.  Also, his RE code  was  changed
from 2B to 2C – involuntarily separated  with  an  honorable  discharge;  or
entry level separation without characterization of service (Exhibit B).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAT provides no recommendation.  DPPAT states  in  order  to  qualify
for MGIB benefits,  the  applicant’s  discharge  reason  must  be  hardship,
service-connected disability, disability existing prior to  entering  active
duty,  physical  or  mental  condition  that  interferes  with  duty,  e.g.,
personality disorder,  or  reduction  in  force.   One  of  these  discharge
reasons will qualify the applicant for MGIB benefits based on the number  of
months served.

The DPPAT complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states  the  discharge  was  consistent
with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation and  was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge  authority.
Applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices
that  occurred  in  the  discharge  processing  nor  did  he  provide  facts
warranting a change to his RE code.

The DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.   DPPAE  states  they  found  no  evidence  of
injustice or error which would suggest the current RE  code  of  2C  is  not
applicable.  Nor  did  the  applicant  submit  any  evidence  supporting  an
injustice or error.  Unless the SPD code (JHJ) is  changed  by  Separations,
the recoupment will be required.

The DPPAE complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/JA recommends denial.  JA states notwithstanding the  AFDRB’s  decision
to upgrade the applicant’s discharge to honorable, he  is  still  ineligible
to receive MGIB benefits.  As the applicant enlisted for  a  period  of  six
years, he was required to serve at least three years on active  duty  to  be
entitled to MGIB benefits with the discharge basis reflected on his DD  Form
214.  Because he did not serve  the  required  time,  he  is  ineligible  to
collect education benefits.

In regard to his request to waive recoupment of his enlistment  bonus,  this
request is without merit.  Although rules concerning bonuses awarded  during
initial enlistments are governed by AFI 36-3002 and bonuses  are  controlled
by AFI 36-2606.  The provision dealing with repaying bonuses  requires  that
“Airman must remain technically qualified [in their AFSC] and  complete  the
full term of enlistment...[f]ailure to do so may result in  termination  and
recoupment.”  The Defense  Finance  and  Accounting  Service  (DFAS)  use  a
discharged Airman’s SPD code to  determine  if  recoupment  is  appropriate.
Under the current DFAS guidance, the applicant’s SPD – JHJ –  will  properly
trigger an action to recoup his enlistment bonus.

The JA complete evaluation is at Exhibit F.

DFAS-POCC/DE recommends denial.  DFAS states upon separation, the  applicant
incurred a debt in the amount of  $8,131.43.   The  debt  resulted  from  an
overpayment of his allotments that paid after date  of  separation  for  the
period November 2002 through January 2003 and a Selective  Enlistment  Bonus
(SEB) recoupment.  The applicant remains liable for the indebtedness to  the
government.  His SPD code reflects “JHJ,” unsatisfactory  duty  performance,
which signifies that the applicant’s bonus  must  be  recouped  at  date  of
separation.

The DFAS complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 19 May 2006, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded   to  the
applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit H).   As  of  this
date, this office has received no response.

On 12 July 2006, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded  to  the
counsel for review and response within 30 days  (Exhibit  I).   As  of  this
date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law  or
regulations.

2.    The application was not timely filed; however, it is in  the  interest
of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of an  error  or  injustice.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
documentation provided, we find no evidence which  would  persuade  us  that
the regulations in effect at the time  were  not  appropriately  applied  or
that he was treated differently  than  others  in  similar  situations.   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.  In  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

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 the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice; the application was denied without  a
personal appearance; and 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-2006-
00227 in Executive Session on 22 August 2006, under the  provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Robert H. Altman, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
                 Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jan 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 28 Feb 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Mar 06.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 14 Mar 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 10 Apr 06.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, DFAS-POCC/DE, dated 11 May 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 May 06.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 12 Jul 06.




                       ROBERT H. ALTMAN
                       Panel Chair