RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00769
			COUNSEL:  NONE
			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code on his DD Form 214, 
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty be changed 
from LGH which denotes “Non-Retention on Active Duty” to LBK which 
denotes “Expiration of Term of Service.”


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is not seeking any monetary compensation as he received one 
half separation pay under SPD code LBK as was instructed in the 
DOS rollback PSDM.   His only issue is that his DD 214 is 
incorrect in stating that his SPD is LGH.  The narrative of the 
LGH SPD code is more negatively impacting than the appropriate SPD 
code of LBK.  

He was separated under the Date of Separation (DOS) rollback 
program and per Personnel Services Delivery Memorandum (PSDM) 13-
14; the SPD code should be LBK.  His separation orders also show 
“LBK” as the separation code.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 20 Apr 00 the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.  

His AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) 
Consideration for Airmen in the Regular Air Force/Air Force 
Reserve, reflects he had an established Unfavorable Information 
File (UIF) and was on the Control Roster (CR).  He was derelict in 
the performance of his duties as Non-Commissioned Officer In 
Charge (NCOIC) of the base Honor Guard and was therefore removed 
from the position and returned to duty in his career field and was 
assigned to 22 LRS.  Soon after returning to 22 LRS, he wrongfully 
had sexual intercourse with two women in the unit, even though he 
was married.  This was detrimental to the unit’s morale and 
discipline due to his position in Quality Assurance.  He proved he 
could not be trusted to perform as an effective member of the 
United States Air Force and lacked the Air Force Core Values.  

His AF Form 100, Request and Authorization for Separation dated 
28 May 13, reflects his SPD Code as LBK.

According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, issued in conjunction 
with his 31 May 13 separation, the applicant received an honorable 
discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “Non-Retention 
on Active Duty” with the corresponding SPD code of LGH.  He was 
credited with 13 years, 1 month and 11 days of active service.   

PSDM 13-14, dated 13 Feb 13, states that airmen separated under 
the DOS Rollback Program are separated IAW AFI 36-3208, paragraphs 
2.2 (Completion of Required Active Service) and 2.17 (Separation 
Authorized by HQ USAF).  It also states airmen will be separated 
with Separation Program Designation (SPD) code JBK (less than 
6 years of active service) or LBK (more than 6 years of active 
service).


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  The SPD Code “LGH” is the correct 
code as listed on the applicant’s DD Form 214.  On 29 Mar 13, the 
applicant’s commander completed the AF Form 418, and decided not 
to select the applicant for reenlistment under the 2013 DOS 
rollback program.  His commander indicated the applicant had three 
LORs, an established UIF and was on the CR.  Based on the non-
recommendation for retention, the applicant was released from 
active duty and given an honorable discharge characterization of 
service.  

The SPD code “LBK” was a temporary code the HQ USAF authorized to 
reflect members receiving one half separation pay until SPD code 
“LGH” could be updated into the military personnel database and 
reflected on all automated DD Forms 214 produced under this 
guidance therefore; it is correct on the applicant’s separation 
orders.  Once “LGH” was in the database and capable of being 
produced on the automated DD Forms 214, it replaced code “LBK” to 
represent half separation pay.  As a result, the separation orders 
do not reflect the same code as the DD Form 214 even though both 
codes mean the same under this guidance.  An administrative 
correction could be made to the separation orders however; it does 
not affect the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s 
discharge.  Therefore, the SPD code, narrative reason for 
separation and character of service are correct and in accordance 
with Air Force instructions.  

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded by stating that the office of primary 
responsibility did not reference any letter, instruction or 
publication as evidence that the LBK was a temporary code.  They 
state that both codes can be used to represent receiving half 
separation pay.  He therefore asks that his SPD code be changed to 
reflect what he was told it would be, as stated in the PSDM.  The 
PSDM does not mention LBK is a temporary code and he believes it 
is a permanent code available for use.  

The 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 timely filed. 

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.   We note the 
applicant’s narrative reason for separation conflicts with the 
information contained in the PSDM 13-14 dated 13 Feb 13.  However, 
the AF Form 418, dated 29 Mar 13 reflects the commander did not 
recommend him for retention and the applicant has not provided any 
evidence to show that the AF Form 418 was prepared in error.  
Therefore, it is our opinion that the narrative reason for 
separation and the corresponding SPD code of LGH, accurately 
describes the circumstances surround the applicant’s separation 
from the Air Force.  As such, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion 
the applicant has not been the victim of an injustice.  In the 
absence of evidence the applicant was treated differently than 
others similar situated, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the requested relief.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and the 
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly 
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-00769 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Feb 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 13 Nov 14.
	Exhibit D.  Applicant’s Response, dated 2 Jan 15.