RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00011
INDEX CODE: 110.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The separation code (SPD) of MGQ (Intradepartmental Transfer) on
his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty be changed to allow him to receive medical benefits.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was informed by numerous Air Force agencies that he should be
covered by TRICARE for six months following his separation.
In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a copy of his DD
Form 214.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 March 2004
and was progressively promoted to the grade of senior aviator
(E-4), having assumed that grade effective and with a date of
rank of 14 March 2006. On 23 July 2007, he signed an AF IMT
1288, Application for Ready Reserve Assignment, under the
provisions of AFI 36-3205, PALACE CHASE Program. The applicant
was released from active duty effective 10 October 2007, with an
honorable characterization of service, a SPD code of MGQ. He
served 3 years, 6 months, and 11 days on active duty. Those
members separating under PALACE CHASE are not authorized Tricare
benefits.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the SPD code of MGQ
is given to those members separating under PALACE CHASE without
completing the required Military Service Obligation of eight
years. Those members separated under PALACE CHASE are not
authorized any Tricare benefits
The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSIZ recommends denial. DPSIZ states no authority exists
to change an airman SPD code for the sole purpose of providing
180-days of medical benefits and 2-years of shopping privileges.
The MGQ SPD code does not warrant Transitional Assistance Program
(TAP) benefits within the Defense Enrollment Eligibility
Reporting System (DEERS) for purposes of receiving an
identification card with benefits and privileges. No error or
injustice has occurred. To adjust an airmans SPD code would not
be consistent with the intent of the law and would create an
unwarranted precedent.
The complete DPSIZ evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 26 February 2010, copies of the Air Force evaluations were
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within
30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this
office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
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 applicants 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 the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we fund 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 AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2010-00011 in Executive Session on 20 April 2010, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Oct 09, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 29 Jan 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIZ, dated 1 Feb 10
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Feb 10.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00416
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial as the SPD of “MGQ” is appropriate for those service members who have not completed the required Military Service Obligation of eight years. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01788
His application was processed and approved with a date of separation of 30 October 2002 and a PALACE CHASE contract expiration date of 10 March 2007. The AFPC/DPPRSP evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1 August 2003 for review and comment (Exhibits D). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04344
According to her MPF, members separated under the FY10/11 FMP received between $20,000 and $22,000 in separation pay. The applicant contends that she should have been provided separation pay as she was separated under the provisionsof the FY10/11 Force Management Program (FY10/11FMP); however, after a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicants complete submission, we are not convinced she was entitled toseparation pay. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-04029
The recoupment action of his $11,581.56, Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) be waived. AFI 36-3205, Applying for the Palace Chase and Palace Front Programs, clearly states the member must repay any unearned portion of an enlistment or reenlistment bonus. The master military pay account (MMPA) shows he separated with a SPD code of KGQ which indicates the bonus is to be recouped unless he separated under Force Shaping.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00790
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He requested a PALACE CHASE transfer from active duty approximately 9 August 2004 and enlisted in the National Guard on 5 January 2005 as outlined in the Force Shaping guidelines. Even though the evidence does not establish that the actions taken by Air Force officials were improper at the time of the applicant’s PALACE CHASE application, we find it difficult to believe the applicant would not have...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00321
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00321 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05658
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05658 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected as follows: a. Should the Board direct other corrections to the applicants DD Form 214, it would then be appropriate to administratively correct the address listed in item 19a. Therefore, we recommend the applicant's records be...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01296
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01296 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be changed from Miscellaneous/General Reasons to Palace Chase. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The narrative reason for separation is incorrect as she went through the Palace Chase program under the 2014 Limited Active Duty Service Commitment (LADSC) Waiver Program. We took notice...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01017
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01017 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her former spouses records be changed to reflect their marriage date as 31 May 73, rather than 29 Sep 73, so that she would be eligible for TRICARE benefits under the 20/20/20 marriage rule. The applicant received benefits based on an error in...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02842
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant is a prior service member of the US Air Force (USAF) with two years, two months and five days of active service before transferring to the Air National Guard (ANG) under the Palace Chase program. She served her time to qualify for her benefits and is being denied them simply because she chose to serve part time rather than not at all which would have been the case had she been separated...