RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01913 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Date of Separation (DOS) be changed to 8 Aug 09. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was unjustly denied participation in the Department of 
Defense (DoD) Homeowners Assistance Program (HAP) by the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) due to an administrative error 
creating an unplanned six-day break in service. He was 
qualified for the HAP when he obtained an inter-service 
transfer. He voluntarily separated from the Air Force and was 
promised a DOS of 8 Aug 09, based on transferring to The United 
States Public Health Services (USPHS) as of 9 Aug 09. However, 
his DD Form 214 was incorrectly published with a DOS of 2 Aug 09 
vice 8 Aug 09. The unplanned break in service caused him to be 
ineligible for the HAP, and resulted in his being stuck with a 
$215,000 debt. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides an expanded 
statement, and copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release 
or Discharge from Active Duty, excerpts from his Air Force 
separation paperwork, his USPHS orders, and a denial letter from 
the COE concerning his application for HAP. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The HAP Program provides some monetary relief to eligible 
service member and federal employee homeowners who suffer 
financial loss on the sale of their primary residence when a 
base realignment or closure (BRAC) announcement causes a decline 
in the residential real estate market and they are not able to 
sell their home under reasonable terms and conditions. 

 


On 26 Feb 09, while serving in the Air Force at Travis AFB, CA, 
the applicant was notified he had been selected for a Permanent 
Change of Station (PCS) assignment to Lackland AFB, San Antonio, 
TX. 

 

On 27 Feb 09, the applicant declined the PCS assignment, 
electing to separate from the Air Force under the seven-day- 
option. 

 

On 8 May 09, the applicant applied for voluntarily separation to 
transfer to USPHS. His separation request reflects a requested 
DOS of 2 Aug 09, and under “MILPDS DATA” his DOS is reflected as 
“8 Aug 3888.” 

 

On 2 Aug 09, the applicant separated from the Air Force. 

 

On 9 Aug 09, the applicant re-entered service with USPHS for an 
assignment at Wilford Hall Medical Center, San Antonio, TX. 

 

The applicant applied to the COE for permission to participate 
in the HAP Program. However, the COE denied his request based 
upon the applicant having “relocated due to voluntary release 
from active duty.” 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility which is included at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice. On 27 Feb 09, the applicant’s commander 
notified him he was selected for a PCS assignment. The 
applicant declined this assignment under the provisions of the 
seven-day-option outlined in AFI 36-2110, Assignments, and chose 
to separate from the Air Force. The seven-day-option allows a 
member to request a DOS as late as the first day of the seventh 
month following the date of the notification of the assignment. 
Therefore, the applicant was required to separate by 1 Sep 09. 
He requested a DOS of 2 Aug 09. The applicant was subsequently 
approved for voluntary separation under the provisions of AFI 
36-3207, Separating Commissioned Officers (Completion of 
Required Service), to be effective 2 Aug 09. We cannot comment 
on the applicant’s eligibility for HAP as his separation was due 
to declining an assignment and not because he transferred from 
one service to another. The applicant’s DOS is the date he 
originally requested and should not be changed. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant disagrees with the Air Force advisory because his 
intent was to never incur a break in service. The advisory does 
not clearly identify the administrative error. The MILPDS 
printout included in his original submission shows the original 
DOS of 8 Aug 09. Unfortunately, it appears someone entered the 
year incorrectly preventing the system from using that date as 
his DOS. If the 8 Aug 09 DOS date in MILPDS had been reflected 
on his DD Form 214, there would be no issue. The coordination 
between the two branches of service was minimal, and that caused 
his hardship (Exhibit D). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an error or injustice. The Board 
took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging 
the merits of the case, to include the applicant’s response to 
the Air Force evaluation; however, a majority of the Board 
agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force 
office of primary responsibility and adopts its rationale as the 
basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim 
of an error or injustice. In this respect, although the 
applicant suggests he was promised a DOS of 8 Aug 09, the Board 
notes that AFPC/DPSOR states the applicant voluntarily applied 
and was subsequently approved for a DOS of 2 Aug 09, and then 
separated on 2 Aug 09 as he requested. Based on the evidence 
before us, it appears the applicant was well aware of his 
scheduled separation date and took no action to change it prior 
to his separation. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, the majority of the Board finds no basis to recommend 
granting the relief sought in this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: 

 

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of an error 
or injustice and recommends the application be denied. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-01913 in Executive Session on 9 Jan 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 


 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application. XXX 
voted to correct the records and has submitted a minority 
report, which is attached at Exhibit F. The following 
documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Apr 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 29 Jun 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Aug 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Aug 12. 

 Exhibit F. Minority Report, dated 24 Jan 13. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair