RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01336
INDEX CODE:
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 6 Nov 07
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The recoupment action of the Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) be
terminated.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was seriously misled by the 17th Training Wing MPF Separations and
retirement section concerning the repayment.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, a
copy of a letter from the Debt Management Services office, a copy of a
letter stating a correction made on his Release from Active Duty
orders, two copies of his DD Form 214, and a copy of his separation
orders.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 1
Jul 98 for a term of four years. Upon graduation from basic training
he was trained in AFSC 3E771, Fire Protection Craftsman. He
reenlisted on 22 Feb 02 and received a Zone A, Multiple 4.0 SRB for
five years and eight months of continued service. On 1 Dec 04, he
received an Article 15 for violation of Article 92, UCMJ.
Specifically, having knowledge of a lawful order issued, to wit: a no
contact order dated 10 Oct 04. Punishment consisted of reduction to
the grade of senior airman, suspended through 6 Jun 05, after time it
will be remitted without further action, unless sooner vacated, and a
reprimand. He voluntarily applied and was approved for separation
from active duty under the Limited Active Duty Service Commitment
(LADSC) Program. He was released from active duty on 1 Jan 05. He
served six years, six months and one day on active duty. He was
assigned a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 1J – “Eligible to
reenlist but elects separation.”
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial. DPPAE states, applicant’s who have
received education assistance, special pay or bonus money and who were
applying for retirement/separation under the Force Shaping Program
were required to acknowledge their understanding that if approved
under this program, they agreed to reimburse the Air Force a
percentage of the cost involved unless otherwise specified. On 7 Dec
04, the applicant acknowledged his understanding of recoupment
provisions. They also note that the AF Form 901, Reenlistment
Eligibility Annex to DD Form 4 clearly stated that any administrative
action initiated by the member or the Air Force could result in the
need to recoup bonus payments. The applicant was released from active
duty with an SPD code of MND which determined recoupment of any bonus
money.
On 22 Aug 06, applicant’s DD Form 214 was partially corrected to
reflect the RE code of 4H – “Serving suspended punishment pursuant to
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).”
A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
22 Sep 06 for review and comment within 30 days. 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 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
and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We note,
the applicant voluntarily did not complete the term of enlistment,
therefore, SRB termination and recoupment is mandatory. Therefore, in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 this application in
Executive Session on 26 October 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Member
Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Apr 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 22 May 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Sep 06.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00055
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00055 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 Jul 07 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Separation Program Designator (SPD) code be changed to a code that does not require repayment of the unearned portion of her Selective Reenlistment Bonus...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01677
The Board noted that the Air Force Separations Branch was unable to determine the propriety of the separation. Nevertheless, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force Reenlistments office that the applicant’s request should be granted based on the governing directive in effect at the time of his separation. Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03679
DPM states the applicant voluntarily did not complete his term of enlistment; therefore, SRB termination and recoupment is mandatory. The DPPRSR evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He feels he is due the SRB money for his EAD time in the Reserve and while on his AGR tour because he has continued to serve in the 1C6XX career field. Even though he is in the Air Force Reserve, he is still...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2006-00561
On 4 Oct 05, the applicant’s commander notified her via an AF Form 286A, “Notification of Nuclear Weapons Personnel Reliability Program Permanent Decertification/Disqualification Action,” he was concurring with the recommendation of the medical authority to permanently decertify her from the PRP. Air Force Form 418, dated 29 Sep 04, which indicates she was selected for reenlistment just 13 months prior to the AF Form 418 dated 28 Oct 05 denying her reenlistment. After reviewing the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02958
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02958 INDEX CODE: 128.10 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 28 JANUARY 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be relieved from her Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) debt. On 21 January 2005, she enlisted in the Air Force Reserve PALACE FRONT program for one year. DPPRS concludes the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01814
It is his opinion that the Air Force essentially broke their contract by forcing him to cross-train, which ultimately resulted in his separation to meet the Air Force’s force reduction requirements. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. He was subsequently released from active duty for miscellaneous/general reason after it appears he voluntarily requested separation under the Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00803
DPPAE states that when the Air Staff reduced the reenlistment window from 12 to 3 months and deleted the SRB in his career field, the applicant was not eligible to reenlist. Evidence indicates that the applicant was not eligible to reenlist on or before the date the Air Force reduced the reenlistment window from 12 months to 3 months on 5 March 2004 because his 12-month prior-to-ETS date was 13 March 2004. _________________________________________________________________ The following...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01898
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01898 INDEX CODE: 128.05 BRIAN J. HIPOL COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 December 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Recoupment of his unearned Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) be waived. Since the applicant separated before completing the time agreed to serve, recoupment was...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00798
The applicant was not eligible to reenlist at any time prior to May 04. They note that the applicant may apply for the first-term airman base of preference program (AFI 36-2110, Atch 2 for CONUS locations only) or compete for an overseas assignment by using the overseas Enlisted Quarterly Assignment Listing (EQUAL). The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy...
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,...