RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01051
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His record be corrected to  show  his  Separation  Program  Designator
(SPD) code as one that reflects a separation under  the  Palace  Chase
program instead of “MND”, “Miscellaneous/General Reasons.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to him not being separated via the Palace  Chase  program,  he  is
being harassed to repay a bonus he should not need to repay under  the
provisions of the Palace Chase program.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of his  DD
Form 214 and his DD Form 4/2, Enlistment Document, showing he enlisted
in the Kansas Air National Guard (KSANG) for six  years  effective  16
September 2005.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

He enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  10  December  2002.   He  was
progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman  (SrA)  effective
and with a date of rank  (DOR)  of  10  April  2005.   He  voluntarily
submitted a request for  separation  under  the  Limited  Active  Duty
Service Commitment (LADSC) Waiver Program in accordance with Air Force
Instruction  36-3208,  Administrative  Separation   of   Airmen,   for
miscellaneous reasons. His  LADSC  waiver  was  approved  and  he  was
separated effective 15 September 2005 with an honorable discharge.  He
served 2 years, 9 months, and 6 days on active duty. On  16  September
2005, he enlisted with the KSANG for a period of 6 years.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  contends  the  Separation
Program Designator (SPD) code  for  individuals  being  released  from
active duty under the LADSC for miscellaneous reasons  was  “MND”  and
the  narrative  reason  for  separation   was   “Miscellaneous/general
reasons.”  DPRRS notes he was separated in accordance with  Air  Force
Instruction (AFI) 36-3208 for  miscellaneous  reasons.   Additionally,
the applicant signed a Statement of Understanding for Member  Applying
for Retirement/Separation Under the Force Shaping Program,  indicating
“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 otherwise specified.”   Based
on the documentation provided and his military record, the  separation
was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation.  The discharge was within the discretion of  the
separation authority.

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.   His  initial  desire  had  been  to
transfer to the Army and become  commissioned.   While  in  the  early
stages of that action, he found out the “Blue to  Green”  program  had
been stopped by the Army.   He  was  told  by  recruiter’s  he  should
separate via the Palace Chase program as he would not be  required  to
repay any unearned portion of bonuses  received.   He  eventually  was
separated; however, he was separated  under  the  LADSC  force-shaping
program where because he was not required to continue his service in a
Reserve component, but would be  held  responsible  for  repaying  any
unearned portion of any bonuses  he  received  for  his  service.   He
believes he was miscounselled by recruiters who told him he would  not
have to repay any bonus monies he 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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  The applicant contends it was  his  intention  to
separate under the Palace Chase Program, but errors made by Air  Force
personnel in the processing of his paper work eventually separated him
under the LADSC program. However, the applicant signed a Statement  of
Understanding for Member Applying for Retirement/Separation under  the
Force Shaping Program and has provided  no  evidence  to  support  his
allegation the paperwork was in error. The  Board  notes  that  airmen
separating under the Palace Chase program incur a  service  commitment
double that of their remaining active duty commitment.   Under  Palace
Chase, airmen are held to their commitment of Reserve service or  they
are returned to active duty to finish their  original  tours.   Airmen
separating under force shaping programs such as LADSC do not  incur  a
Reserve service commitment and are  under  no  obligation  to  join  a
Reserve component – thus incurring a debt to  the  government  of  any
portion of a bonus they will not  have  earned  by  separating  early.
Therefore, in the absence of 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-
2006-01051 in Executive Session on 11 July 2006, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
      Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Mar 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 May 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jun 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Jul 06.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair