RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01082
            INDEX CODE:  128.08

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The separation pay he received be adjusted and paid to him as per  the
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or  Discharge  from  Active  Duty,
dated 8 June 2000 indicates.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His DD Form 214 was reviewed and his separation pay  was  subsequently
reduced by half.  He states the  District  of  Columbia  Air  National
Guard (DCANG) was responsible for the DD 214 review and  reduction  of
his separation pay and he requests  he  receive  the  full  amount  as
indicated on his original DD Form 214.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of his  DD
Form 214, a DD Form 215, Correction to DD 214, and  a  National  Guard
Bureau (NGB) letter requesting the change to the DD Form 214.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force in  1979.   After  serving
over ten years, he joined the DCANG and was progressively promoted  to
the grade of technical sergeant with  a  Date  of  Rank  (DOR)  of  15
February 1991.  He served with the DCANG for 7 years, 7 months, and 12
days before being released from Active/Guard Reserve (AGR) duty  as  a
result of a reduction in force (RIF) on  12  May  1998.   He  received
$45,086.34 in separation pay and  his  service  was  characterized  as
honorable.  On 28 June  2000,  ANG/DPFOM  requested  the  Air  Reserve
Personnel Center (ARPC) correct the applicant’s DD Form 214 to show  a
reduced amount of separation pay, as their  original  calculation  had
been incorrect.  On 6 July 2000, a DD Form  215  was  accomplished  to
change his DD Form 214 to show he received $22,543.17 rather than  the
$45,086.34 he originally received – a 50% reduction.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/A1P0F recommends denial.  Consultation with the  applicant’s  unit
revealed he had been discharged for cause (abuse of government  credit
card).   At  the  time  of  discharge,  the  honorable  discharge  was
negotiated and no further action was taken against the applicant.  The
Comptroller, DCANG,  indicates  the  severance  pay  calculations  and
subsequent corrections were done by  ANG/DPF  and  upon  noticing  the
discrepancy  the  documents  required  to  correct  the   error   were
completed. The DCANG Comptroller is of the belief the  applicant  knew
then that the calculations were incorrect, otherwise he would have had
it overturned during his  appeals  and  that  he  merely  awaited  the
passage of time to erode memories, regulations and staff that  handled
his earlier case, in hopes of a different outcome.

A1P0F’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states the ANG’s advisory is  not  true.   He  contends  the
advisory statements his honorable discharge was negotiated and because
he complained, his unit gave him severance pay, are not true.  The ANG
provides no documentation to show their comments are anything but pure
speculation and conjecture.  He received severance pay because he  was
entitled to it and it is completely erroneous to believe an  honorable
discharge could be ‘negotiated.’

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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  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
National  Guard  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  amount  of  his
separation pay was found to  be  in  error.  ANG/DPFOM  noted  he  was
actually authorized exactly half  of  the  original  amount  provided.
Therefore  the  Superintendent  of  Personnel  Management  (ANG/DPFOM)
recalculated the separation pay in  accordance  with  DOD  Instruction
(DODI) 1332.29.  Should the applicant provide any new evidence to show
the recalculation was done in error we would be willing to  reconsider
his case.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the  relief  sought  in
this application.

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  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2006-01082 in Executive Session on 1 March 2007, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
      Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
      Ms. Kathleen B. O’Sullivan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Apr 2006, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ANG/A1P0F, dated 22 Jan 07.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jan 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Jan 07.



                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair